Go ahead and call the meeting door. Let me welcome everybody to the January 22nd meeting of the Fairfax City Council if you Rise for the invocation presented by councilmember winner and then remain standing for the pledge of allegiance Let us pray Please Lord be with us tonight less us with your grace Give us wisdom and discernment as we deliberate city issues give us wisdom and discernment as we deliberate city issues, please protect those in a military service and all those involved in our nation and community security. Amen. and to the Republic for which it stands, the One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Can we see it? We have one presentation to start out the meeting. It may only be one, but it's very important and a very exciting one. If I could ask for representatives, the library to please come forward. You would have to either not listen to any of the activities of the City of Fairfax or be in a whole not to understand that this weekend is a very, very exciting weekend for the city, and that's the opening of our new regional library here in the City of Fairfax. This weekend is gonna be the kickoff at that particular event, certainly a long, a way to event. I'll let you all kind of maybe fill in some of the details or work in and take place, but if I could, I'd like to read the following proclamation and recognition of our events. Whereas from its humble beginning in the 576 square foot center block building located in Pound of Fairfax in 1940, the first permanent home of the Fairfax Library is flourished into a vast regional system with an expansion collection and it whereas to satisfy a growing demand in 1962, the City of Fairfax Regional Library moved into the 39,200 square foot three-story center for learning in the heart of Old Town district and whereas from its onset, the City of Fairfax Regional Library has been the guardian of the Virginia Room Fairfax County's foremost collection of books, photographs and manuscripts related to the history of Fairfax County's foremost collection of books, photographs, and manuscripts related to the history of Fairfax region government, geology, and whereas the Fairfax library system is the largest in Virginia sponsoring various programs for children and adults, including national local author readings and book signings, local musician concerts and events from our diverse population, and has been ranked among the top 10 libraries in the nation. And whereas in early summer of 2005, the City Council approved a financing and development agreement with Fairfax County officials for a new City of Fairfax Regional Library to be located at the corner of Oli Highway and Norstreet to provide 44,450 square feet of space and a 100, most importantly, a 199 car parking garage. And now therefore, I, Robert F. Letter, Mayor and Concert with the City Council on behalf of the citizens of the City Fairfax, you hereby recognize and announce the grand opening of the City Fairfax Regional Library and encourage all citizens to join in the festivities of the exciting event on January the 26th 2008 beginning at 9.30 a.m. And maybe you all can fill in some of the details and tell us about the exciting weekend. Thank you. This is a really wonderful partnership between Fairfax City and Fairfax County Library Board and the Fairfax County Government, a public-private partnership that brings us just this fabulous new building that you're all going to love with a triple the space for the Virginia Room and as Rob said, lots of parking. So please join us for the celebration on Saturday morning. We're going to start off at the old library. 930 in the morning, we're going to have a parade of books of come one, come all. And we will walk over to the new library and have an opening ceremony at 10 a.m. It's going to be outdoors, so we promise you it will be brief. Brief and meaningful. And then we'll all go in with the books and their festivities all day long. We're gonna have a magician. We're gonna have a treasure hunt. They're gonna be refreshments. Favors for everyone. And we have a great history of the library. Wonderful volunteers. And I'm sorry, Marilyn Feldman from the Fairfax Friends isn't here, but Gloria Toner, who's a former chairman of the Friends is here. And she just exemplifies the kind of volunteer support we've had all these years. So please join us on Saturday. Marilyn really summed up the activities for Saturday and we encourage everyone to come down to the old library 915 to 930. I believe there's going to be free sweatshirts for people marching in the parade. So in the first 150 or so we've got a free sweatshirt and then come up to the new building. And I said, Mary gave you an outline of the activities. We're going to have a community cafe with refreshments from the local community. Two magician shows will have tours of the new building focusing on both the library services as well. The architectural features of the new building. So please come out and we are looking forward to seeing our public again. We've missed everyone and looking forward to seeing them in our nice new facility. So it comes to the joints. I'm chairman of the library board on behalf of the library board. I want to congratulate the city of Fairfax for the way they have worked with the county of Fairfax to come together with this partnership for this absolutely beautiful building. I think it is the most beautiful building we have in the entire system. And I'm sure you're going to love it, but please use it. Thank you. Well, let me just echo those comments. I think when we look back over time and we look at the whole downtown redevelopment of which certainly the library building has become the cornerstone and I think we're most proud that it's the focal point of our downtown redevelopment. This truly is a wonderful example of jurisdictions working together. From the city standpoint, the county allowed the city to use its operating expenditures that we paid annually for years to support the system and allowed that money to go completely to the debt retirement of the new library. So in essence, we've got a brand new library with 199 dedicated parking spaces in the middle of our city for the same cost that we've had the relationship with our old library for all these many years. And it's something, I know the council is very proud of it. Something certainly we commend the leadership of the library board who never let us sort of fall behind the power curve and trying to get the deal done and certainly to the leadership of the library and to Mary and all the wonderful folks on the board and to the community as a whole. But it really we think will be the cornerstone of our downtown. If you have not seen the building, make sure you come on Saturday. You will absolutely be stunned by the beauty, the user-friendly aspect of it. It really is a compliment to everybody who's been involved and it's one that our community will benefit from for years and decades to come. So thank you for your leadership. Thank you. I appreciate that. Here, let's hold on. Let's get a quick picture here. Now that. Thank you very much. Okay. That now brings us to agenda item number four, which are presentations by the public and any item that is on tonight's agenda, but does not call for a public hearing. If you're here to speak to us on item 7a, b or c, which are our public hearings, those items will come up in a few minutes. But if you'd like to talk just about any other item that is on tonight's agenda, but does not call for a public hearing, this would be your opportunity. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody like to address this item, item number four at this time. Very none. We'll close item four and we'll move to the adoption of the agenda. So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it passed unanimously. Now brings us to the approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Greenfield? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move adoption of the consent agenda for agenda item number 6A. Introduction of an appropriation resolution in the amount of $9,250 for the purchase of the troll vehicle rifles and agenda item number 6B introduction of an ordinance, approving a sale of certain property owned by the city Fairfax identified as tax map parcel number 57-4-02-106, and having a street address of 10435 North Street to ask them to grow investments LLC. And for agenda items number 6A and V. I moved away the first reading and set the public hearings for February 12, 2008. Second. Move by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Ms. Wiener. Does anybody wish to object or to abstain from the handling of any of these items on the consent agenda? Miss Cross. I would like to pull item B from the consent agenda, please. Okay, item 6B will pull from the consent agenda and the other comments. I'll unfairly vote in the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a pass unanimously. We're now at item 6B, Mr. Sisson. Actually, real brief staff report. At the direction of counsel, we've prepared a proposed purchase agreement, purchase and sale agreement to sell what is the existing circuit property to the current owners of the circuit establishment. There's a proposed contract attached to the item. The purpose of the item this evening is simply to introduce the ordinance and to set the public hearing, which will be noticed and advertised and set for February 12th. Would be happy to answer any questions. Questions or staff? just an advertised and set for February 12th. Would be happy to answer any questions. Questions or staff? Mr. Mayor, I just wanted the staff report to be heard by all so that we can move forward with this at the February 12th meeting, knowing that there's been full disclosure and full advertisement, and that sort of thing for this property. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to have Mr. Greenfield. There are specific issues that we have with a contract between now and the 12th would be the time to raise that. I'm not correct. Absolutely. This is just a draft contract you can make changes if you like. Any other comments? Just want to make sure everybody's clear with that. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. I'd like the entertainer motion for introduction. Item number six B. So moved. Moved by Ms. Cross, seconded by Ms. Winner, any discussion? Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry for this item, I have to read the full motion. Okay, Ms. Cross, if you don't mind, please. I move approval of the introduction of an ordinance approving the sale of certain real property owned by the city of Fairfax identified as tax map map number 570206 and having a street address of 10434 North Street to ask and grow investments LLC. Excuse me 10435 North Street. Second. Moved by Ms. Cross, seconded by Ms. Winter, in her discussion. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? In a passing annulcey. That now brings us to item 7, which is our series of public hearings. 7a is a public hearing and council action or request of PNC bank to reason on approximately 1.29 acres from R3 residential the C2 retail commercial with Proffers, to discuss the demolition of historic structures and or alternatives, a special use permit, pursuant to redevelopment in the flood planning, a special use permit, pursuant to allow a financial institution with a drive in lanes, a special exception to allow construction and grading in the resource protection area, a special exception to modify the stacking space requirements, a special exception to modify the loading space requirements, a variance to the requirement of the subdivision code section 867 to amend a subdivision of a land without providing the required right away with on the premises known as 10631106331064510649 Main Street and currently classified as mixed use on the comprehensive plan future land use map. Has this been properly advertised? Yes. Staff report, please. Thank you. Getting the normal mayor and council, the project before you, which is familiar with is PMC Bank. We look into as the mayor stated to rezone the property to C2 to allow the bank and also associated land use requests for, especially from the two drive-throughs and several dealing with floodplain and a couple of items which I have been listed and I will go through. The site is located, I know we want to familiar with the property, but for those who are not on judicial drive in Main Street across from, the property is the residential units. The Flamingo is Jaguar. I believe the name is Courtland now. There's business and retail to the north, to the south. There's the cemetery and more commercial lying to the east. There are three buildings on the site. This is the one to the, to on judicial to the, I'm sorry, on Maine to the east. This is the one that is center. Can we say it? to the east. This is the one and that is center. The monitor is not on if someone could them. Thank you. Thank you. Let me back that up. The first property to the east is a they're all commercial buildings. This is the first property to the east. The one in the center is this small home. And there's a larger home further to the west on to the corner where the actual bank will be located if approved. And again, we noted proposals at 3,600, little more, 3,600, 1,000, 3,600 square foot building financial issues where it drive through. And the rezoning from R3 to C2 necessitates several special exceptions, especially use permits in a couple special exceptions. One is the actual special needs where it put a drive through and then redevelopment into form plan. As long as land use is pressed for special exception for the resource protection area also known as the RPA for grading and paving within that and a way of the loading space requirement. And it's also this invariance, it's a request the limit for a crime of a additional right away of eight feet along Main Street. This is the proposal of the property. If you go back to the aerial, because these are the three buildings, the bank will be located approximately here, the parking here, and a drive-out from judicial to Main Street towards the rear. And we can see that here as well. Again, the dry valve parking, the bank, and so forth. A little quick development history of the site originally, 2002, was known as the Keon V Development Project. Do the intensity of the site. The pose and what was withdrawn and was abandoned. There's a lot of constraints on the site with the floodplain and the RPA. A little background in the comprehensive plan history with that site too. It was designated for commercial redevelopment in 97 and 04 comprehensive plan. It was named for a commercial where an open space option to do the environmental constraints on the property. So you can see we recognize it was did we developing the property? In 2003 though, however, the open space study did not assign sufficient high priority to result in a purchase of properties and remains designated for commercial. The current company has planned, sometimes several requirements for such properties that bring enhancement close to the objectives, which is exceeding open space. We developing an undue-to-eye site would improve dark texture and providing sidewalk, landscaping and lighting and other facade improvements of the property, in this case, it's a redevelopment that would be more and more on the line character with the old town district. And this is the old town transition district. The landing section also addresses, but like I just said, the old town graphics transition section also addresses, like I just said, the old town, graphics, transition area and supports, again, unify redevelopment. Now what that means is there's three separate parcels on this property that are being consolidated. They're very hard to preserve and keep as much of the building out of floodplain. Actually, the building's out of the floodplain. The parking's in it, but it's been engineered. I mean, the RPA, excuse me, the World's Collection Area, the floodplain has been moved to bring the buildings out of the floodplain, the current buildings are in the floodplain, again, fossil consolidation. And that we could go through. Now, at the last meeting at the work session, it was concerned in the access area along here that it could be cut through traffic. This proposal here is showing from the applicant and it's part of your package a traffic circle around the bout along here. The idea with that is to, if you have an aggressive drive that would use this as a cut through between a stop sign along here, stop sign at the drive through entrance, stop sign along here, would mitigate that somewhat. Staff has looked at that and is generally comfortable with what is proposed if Councilor Seafitt to go along with this as well. And this is the current configuration again that along here, that traffic circle is not here, it's more of a straight shot. Though, however, there's stop sign that along here, that traffic circle is not here, it's more of a straight shot. Though however, there's our stop sign here, here, and I forgot to mention there's a speed tables along here and actually we back up. Let's see if I don't get that one. Speed tables along where the stop sign is as well. In terms of the variance, the variance that repressed itself, because of the constraints of the RPA and the floodplain, the flying additional right away would actually add more and purview service area because we'll have to push the building and the parking back forward to into it. The idea is to keep it out. So, it's kind of a compromise would approve the rightway request of the variance request. We're not affected traffic in negatively and in no short-term plans to the wine streets on a balance it seems to be fitting and we could support that. These are the architecturals here in the transition district. It's looking to capture some of the elements of the old town and staff has looked at this and feels that this is definitely along those lines. I know council and I'm sure the sense of where the historic issues regarding the site, the three buildings on the site have been in question in terms of this historic significance. The applicant has done octological surveys of the site to determine the significance and found that there is not, there doesn't warrant any merit, however. In the key and the development proposal, when we stated this way back in 02 and that project had come before the council, the staff said the private student contribute to the knowledge of local history and that if the buildings on the council. The staff said the private student contribute to the knowledge of local history and that if the buildings on the mouse we should mitigate such as according to buildings, for the beginning of the farmer's historic resources and photograph. A lot of this already has been done. In 04 and historic building, inventory included the existing buildings on inventory and noted their local snippets again but never was approved. In 06 and 06 party application, no one's information. The surveys I mentioned just earlier were done, the archaeological phase one and phase two. And a summary of that is in your packet. And again, went over that though there were some significant artifacts here. Nothing was found enough to deem to save these buildings or use them any further than demolish and build a new bank on the site. And I will go through this real briefly here too. Knowing all this, the historic Fairfax City requested a control of currency to participate in section 106 process. And in July, and that was back in July of 2007, as well as the control of currency when receiving this, agreed to look into the matter and review the historic 106 process with the buildings. We just led to an October 2007 PNC bank requested a deferment of the hearing for the work of the consultant staff and look at possible layouts for the building. And there's a memo included in your packet, which basically summarized here that there are five different scenarios and it looked at the emphasize any redesign of the project under any options required PNC to be engineered a site which they do not be economically feasible at this point. Again, these are the buildings that were in question. So based on information we have, we conclude that the subject probably is constrained with the floodplain, the building placement and what it was being developed there, fits with the comprehensive plan and will work well with the streetscape and it's providing professional service that expect to contribute to the city's tax base. So we staff does recommend approval of the proposal. We had last week, last Tuesday, an conference meeting with the HFCI, PNC, Council of Currency, and several mitigation measures with the applicant will discuss how to come out of that meeting. With that, I conclude the presentation. Questions of staff? Mr. Greenfield? I conclude the presentation. Questions of staff. Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Colone, in your staff report, you recommend, I know we've talked about this before, and that's the concern on judicial drive with the driveway there. The staff report recommends of right in, right out. Correct. Would a better way to go, either we don't prescribe a solution now until we figure out if we have a problem there, should we do a right in right out now and also ask that the applicant in conjunction with staff take a look at this at six months after they're open for operation as well as 12 months. And if there are problems that you and along with the applicant prescribe additional solutions, it would then have to come back before the council, or should we take everything off and just start from scratch after you've done an evaluation and come back to us in 12 months? I'm terms of taking everything off. I'll let the applicant speak to that and how they, terms of field, terms of what we stand, terms of what we're going to go with this proposal before you. I think a write-in write-out you go and I think it's reasonable to look at it. If there's issues down in the future, I would defer to the public works director in terms of, you know, any concerns with that as well. You know, I'm not sure what mitigation measures you could provide there without designing that site as it is. I guess I want to make sure we get this right. You have traffic certainly. I can understand. I was using judicial right now. You're not really realizing the full impact of the traffic because the courthouse isn't completely open. This is kind of a bypass to the downtown. So you want to be able to allow access to the bank. You also want to make sure that we don't have problems there by having that driveway in there. So that if people are heading south on Judicial, as they come off the Main Street, they're trying to turn people are blocking the driveway and create a backup there. So I just want to make sure I don't have a problem with the right in, right out. But I want to make sure that we've got an opportunity to have another bite at the apple if we need to. So that's why I'm asking you, we should remove the right end right out and and then have them come in, have a report generated within a certain number of months after operation saying just evaluating the effectiveness of the traffic situation there. That seems to me there'll be two issues. One is access into and out of the property and the other one is access through the property and those were the two land use related issues that the City Council seem to be most concerned about when we had a work session on the site. So if we have an opportunity to look at this through a period of months, either six months or preferably 12 months and then can evaluate both of those things, the right-end, right-out restriction, and internally whether or not additional traffic calming types of measures are indicated or warranted, then that would give us that second bite of the apple. Seems to me that would be a good approach. I just want to make sure you are comfortable with that. Thank you. Thank you. That's another question from the comfortable with that. Thank you. Thank you. That's another question to staff this morning. Mr. Mayor, thank you. On the same issue, on the right hand right out, if you're looking at the plans, it's a straight driveway with like 90 degree angles. And I've seen other places where they have like a little triangle in the middle and the curve is such that you can only come to take that right hand and you can, and it's very directed so you don't have somebody coming west on Main Street, take a right on Judicial and think they're going to cross a lot of traffic to get into the bank that way. And this, the driveway as it is designed here, there's going to be somebody that's going to try that. More than probably a few. But if he had that little triangle there, it's that really, really directed the in and the out that might be worth looking into. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. Rasmussen? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got several. Can you explain a little bit more the mitigation of the cut-through from judicial domain? Sure. It's merely efforts to slow down the traffic. Thank you. The fear and understandable so that someone coming down to the judicial being impatient with any backup that may occur, especially during the rush hours, rush hour time will cut through to get to mainstream, especially if they're going right on to me. What they're proposing, if you notice, you get the point. There is a divider here coming in that helps with the right end right out. And as they proceed in, there is a speed table here which creates essentially a hump or a bump to slow down whoever's coming in there and also make an activity for someone to stop and pay attention. You see the stop sign going in the opposite direction as well, just to keep traffic slow. And obviously someone coming in from tradition will also notice that. Once you get to this point, with this circle, naturally you have to slow down just to make the turn. So it just slows people up further. There is a stop sign here at the exit of the drive-through that will stop someone, plus they will still have to navigate the circle as well. And then again, another speed table at a stop sign until you get here. So typically, the aggressive driver is going to cut through. But hopefully, and we feel that at least at this point is sufficient enough to slow someone down. There's always going to be that one person that's going to, in any site, do what they're going to do. And there's only so much to do with that. But overall, this is a fairly acceptable plan. Okay. To follow up that question with terms back, to follow up that question with terms of traffic and the issue that Mr. Greenfield was raising, on Judicial there, there is no center median, I recall, so that somebody coming down on Main Street East turning right on Judicial, the only way we've got them to stop them from turning left into the site is signage. Is that correct? Correct. That's fine. And you think that's going to be adequate? If I could, the, with a somewhat of a redesign of that sort of entry island that becomes more like what I think Farcroft installed one of those as well. Where the, it's a Y and basically, you know, a Hummer might try to navigate that, but most cars won't. So it's a more radical angle at that median, at the entrance, would solve that, I think. Okay. Well, we're on traffic another question. They're asking for a modification of the stacking lane requirement. Could you give us give me at least a little more detail on that? What that means? They're stacking along the circle out on this one right here. The proposing I believe 11 spaces here, D, we require 15, 14 or 15, I forget. So they're just reducing it by four cars. In terms of usually what you see at banks like this, with two drives, the lanes, the average about seven or eight. So in terms of our code, they're not meaning it, in terms of technical numbers there within range. Okay. And then question of the floodplain. Have we allowed the encroaching of the floodplain on other properties to this extent? This is almost 75% of the property in the floodplain? I think there's a couple of the properties. There are. Residential. I'm trying to, yeah, some of them were residential. The, I think it's important to keep in mind too, that while there is intrusion into the floodplain, they're also pulling back from the floodplain in a lot of areas as well. So it's, some of it is, some of it moves closer, some of it is some of it moves closer, some of it's taken back, but the part that's moving closer, I mean, the design tries to achieve an efficient layout given the size and shape, particularly the shape of this property and given where the floodplain line is. You know, a lot of floodplain properties aren't the most desirable for redevelopment. Unfortunately, we're going to get more and more of those in the future. So while we might not have a good catalog or library of redevelopments in the floodplain that we have experienced with, there have been some and particularly some of these commercial properties that are close to these streams. I think we're going to see more and more of this kind of request. So in any event, the notion is to the or the approach that we've taken is to, number one, make sure it meets the floodplain criteria. That is basically just not creating any environmental problems by doing this to achieving economically viable redevelopment and use of the property. And trying to improve the overall environmental condition of the situation, particularly as it relates to water quality, and I think we've achieved those here. One last question. We're asking for no dedication of right away on Main Street. Is that consistent? Is the line of right away for this property consistent with the adjoining properties all the way along there? If you know the answer. Yes, I believe it is. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Other questions this staff, Miss Cross? Following up on the flood plain. With the intel that's proposed for this project, will the flood plain not be changing the the boundaries of the floodplain. The floodplain will change and they'll need to file the necessary clomars and lomars to verify that the changes in the floodplain will in fact not be negative in any way, but it will change. So what you're saying is that there should be a positive effect to the change in the floodplain in terms of the sighting of the building and the I don't know positive is the answer that changes in the floodplain won't have a negative effect on any of the surrounding areas Okay, thank you I just talked a little bit about the retaining wall for the infill and at some points I know that there it is over 13 feet and high. Have we stipulated that there must be a broad iron fence or some sort of additional. We have not seen a design drawings for the retaining wall. Staff is eager to review the design of this retaining wall. Right. Right. I believe that may be a building code requirement as well that a retaining wall over a certain height requires a hammer. I didn't see it in the plan so apparently. I had a question about lighting. They have agreed to put in the gas lights that were used in downtown. And that's consistent with what is along the post office property. But it seems to me that west of this property, we have the A-Corn lights. What is proposed for that new townhome development that's right there? Is that A-Corn lights or is it the gas light? I believe it's the gas. I think that was changed. I have to, honestly, I have to go back and look it up essentially. But I think that was changed though. I have to, honestly, I have to go back and look it up essentially. But I believe that was changed to be consistent. Well, I think they should be consistent. Yeah, consistent. Yeah, we'll find out what it is. And we can stipulate that. And there is a, in the rezoning and the proffers, there is a condition. I should say a proffer that indicates that whatever was approved in terms of spruescape design on the Jaguar property, the old name, something similar follows in terms of the lighting used and so forth. So we have that protection to speak in there. But the answer to the question, I believe it will be consistent, but we can we can we'll make sure. Let's show that. Okay. I just have a couple of other things here, but I have to. Couple of other things here, but I have to Okay, we got that covered sorry Forgive me I do this the old-fashioned way I guess. This across is it okay if I go to Mrs. Winner and then I'll come back and pick up some, Mrs. Winner? I know that there has been a lot of, thank you Mr. Mayor, a lot of concern about the existing buildings. Are there going to be proper historical pictures taken and so that that history is maintained or preserved in photographs or how will it be? I'll have the architect, I'm sorry, the engineer, talk about that in more detail, but yes, historical markers and inventory. Some of the, a lot of this has been done already of photos, not just photos in the home, but photos internally and measurements and saltwater will be taken. Okay. And or have been already. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have been concerned from from the beginning I guess about the intrusion of the project on the cemetery. And I note in our materials that the potential for grave sites to be located as close as 50 feet in distance to the floodplain is possible. If that were in fact a situation that would come as close as 50 feet to a graveside would would that intrude on the sanctity of that graveside is in seed or whatever. The flood plain is based on you know the 100-year storm I don't know if people are going to be out typically during a hundred-year storm, I don't know if people are going to be out typically during a 100-year storm. It's very- No, I'm concerned about the non-living, the people that are buried in those graves and whether the intrusion into the flood plain will disturb those graves. I don't think that that would be the case. We have a typically marine clays in the city of Fairfax, which are pretty aren't very well draining. So the clay around the grave should resist water from intrusion enough until the floodplain dissipates after the storm. from intrusion enough until the floodplain dissipates after the storm. And also, if I could add to that, the floodplain changes with the Semitokomar. The floodplain actually was pulled slightly away from the Semitory. So it's just following up on what Director Public Works said, that's an addition, you know, mitigation measure in terms of the soils and also the floodplain actually is a little further away from the grave sites. Just the point. And the other angle here is that I don't... Will the project affect the cemetery to the extent that we cannot use portions of the property that we might otherwise have been able to use. Sorry, could you repeat that? Yes. Will this project intrude on the cemetery to the extent that we might not be able to use as much of the cemetery property as we otherwise would? No, no, I don't think so. Looking at the changes in the flood plain, I think the effect on the summataries relatively minor. Thank you. Other questions as to staff? Just, I just want to follow up and make sure I understand the concern. I know the concern about the cut-through traffic, when it first came up, I thought was in regards to traffic coming down to additional northbound that wanted to turn eastbound on to Main Street. I use this intersection a lot and I don't ever recall seeing most of the traffic certainly in the afternoon that comes down there is all stacking to turn left not to go right. I can't imagine any car coming from 123 would turn left unjudicial, follow that all the way around just to avoid downtown and then get caught in the worst part of downtown which is entering it from the west. Am I missing something there or would you confer that that probably is not? That likely will not be the case but but there's always that potential, I think that's where the concern came from, that 445 hour, that there's something going on, and all the sudden stacking up past the entrance and people stalling the cut through, especially those aggressive drivers. I think that's where the whole concern came from. I mean, the only cars I could think that would be doing that are ones going possibly to the funeral home or to the Fairfax building or not. Or as you get closer to downtown and make more sense just to go straight. And, you know, if you look at the traffic numbers, they do tend to go west instead of east. And then the concern, and I certainly understand why we don't want to allow left turns into the bank, there's two lanes that are going, if you're coming off of Main Street and then you're going to go south now on Judicial. There's two lanes that are going straight through and the only thing that impedes the free flow of traffic is when you get up to the stop sign closer to the post office. I don't ever remember, I could see the problem where if a car was turning left, now you'd only have one lane going straight through, but it turns into one lane right on the other side of the stop sign anyway. So I'm trying to just grasp the real magnitude of the issue or is it, it doesn't seem like it would have that much impact negatively since it funnels down to one lane anyway, and you've got to be in the far right lane to get into that funnel. And it's fairways back from the post office, and I just don't see that much traffic backing up there, but am I? No, I'd say as a practical matter, Mr. Mayor, you're correct. I do think that this, the northbound traffic that comes to the intersection, the traffic signal at Main Street does back up past on a regular basis past where this entrance would be. And so to restrict left turns into this, you know, would essentially take that potential conflict out of play. But I think, but also the practical matter I agree with you. This is a abundance of caution to prohibit the left turn lanes into this piece property. Thank you. Any other questions or staff? If not, we owe Mr. Greenfield. I can even ask the question of the applicant. I didn't see in the the proper conditions the hours of operation No, then they're not listening in the proper conditions and I can have the applicant speak to that Okay, if there are any other questions will now open up the public hearing let me invite to represent it from PNC to address the city council Council. Good evening, Kathy Poscar with Walsh, Kaluigi, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant PNC Bank. Thank you for continuing to persevere with us through this process. As you can remember, probably, or maybe not, that we had our first City Council work session on October 22nd, 2005. So it has been quite a process but I think that the project has been improved over time and we're here to present to you hopefully the final iteration of that plan. I think the last time we met with you the two outstanding issues which staff discussed were the concerns about the traffic situation and cut through traffic, as well as the historic preservation issues. The plan that you see before you in terms of the architecture and the general sight layout is the same plan that you saw the last time we met, except for the adjustment to that drive aisle. The idea of putting it around about in the center of the site was for people who might have the propensity to cut through that when they look down that drive aisle, instead of seeing a straight shot that they would otherwise see, they're going to see an impediment in terms of a physical structure that hopefully will make them second-guess the idea that that would be a quicker solution than going to the traffic light. So we think that that is an improvement. Since last July, we have been going through the Section 106 review process and have had much correspondence and communication with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of the Controller. There have been conference calls between those departments, my client, city staff and HFCI and that culminated in a conference call on January 16th, where the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of the Control of the Concurrency indicated that they were satisfied, that PNC was unable to preserve the existing buildings, and during that conference call a discussion began regarding the mitigation measures, which will be included in a memorandum of agreement that is currently being prepared and will be circulated for review. But specifically in terms of what those mitigation measures would be, that PNC would fund a historic marker with text for the marker we believe to be in coordination with HFCI. PNC will utilize photos of the existing buildings as artwork within the proposed bank, and these photos will be provided to other parties as well. We are also agreeing to prepare a segment concerning the existing buildings and the history of the area for a virtual tour. Now, apparently there was a discussion that perhaps the city would endeavor to do a virtual tour of the historic areas and historic buildings. And we agreed that we're such a virtual tour to develop that we would do our segment of that virtual tour. And if not, it probably is also, if the city decided that it was not going to pursue that larger endeavor, it is probably also something that could be worked into perhaps a website link for people to seek out. We will provide measured floor plans of all floors of each of the three buildings. And we will also provide the current and former architectural renderings of the proposed bank for the state historic preservation office for their comment. So we did work with these groups and we have come to what we think is the right solution for the property. Once again, as we've discussed before and I think staff mentioned, consolidation and redevelopment of this property is consistent with your goals as outlined in the comprehensive plan. A few things that I wanted to highlight actually just one correction on the stacking lane modification. That actually was a waiver of the required width, not the required number of stacking spaces. So it's my understanding from the engineer that the required stacking spaces are 11 spaces and we are providing 11. We're reducing the width of the stacking lane from 10 feet and width to 9 feet and width. And that was all part of our design struggles in trying to minimize the impacts on the floodplain and on the site as a whole. We've reduced the width of the floodplain by raising the site and that is part of the analysis that will be done by FEMA. We've provided the necessary applications to FEMA and they will be reviewing that and issuing the appropriate approvals. In terms of the retaining walls, they are brick facade retaining walls with railings on top so they will meet building code and obviously maintain safety. Let it be known that PNC is a very concerned and involved corporate citizen. I think you can see a lot of their involvement and their longstanding support of the community and its surroundings. They're the premier sponsor for the George Mason University Center for the Arts. They're the premier sponsor of the Wolftrap Summer Season. The president of PNC Bank is on the Arts Council of Fairfax. They have a founding partner of Fairfax Futures, which is an early childhood partnership. They've supported the LAM Center and the multi-cultural day with the Korean community at the Fairfax Circle branch. So they are an involved corporate citizen and look forward to this new bank branch in Fairfax City. I think of particular note and significance is the fact that this will be a green building. We started with a prototype that would meet, that we know because we've done it elsewhere, would meet lead certification. Obviously we had to go back to the drawing board on this particular branch to fit in with Fairfax City. And we will still commit that that will be a certified green building. And I know that's something of importance to this line and this winter. So you can rest assured that this will be a lead certified building. Of also very interesting note that PNC Bank has 40 certified buildings in existence today and continues to add to that inventory with each new bank branch they build. That is more certified green buildings than any other company in the world. So I think that Fairfax City should be proud to have a hopefully a new green building at this corner of Maine and Judicial and we look forward to your approval and welcome any questions. Let me say if there's any questions of the applicant. Harry Nahn, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing or continue the public hearing and first to sign up to address the council's mic pappis. Good evening. Michael Pappas, 3701, Chamber of Fairfax, Virginia. Vagan, your indulgence. If you would bear with me, I would like to offer first a statement as in my role as a member of the Board of Directors of Historic Fairfax City Inc. And then make a couple of personal comments based upon my experiences as a aging Virginia Attorney, shall we say, but a relatively new citizen to the city of Fairfax. First, I want to relieve all of perhaps some misconceptions that some of you may have regarding HFCI's role in this process. And in so doing, Mr. Mayor and City Council, I would like to refer to our bylaws of historic Fairfax City Inc. The purpose and our mission, as containing those bylaws in particular, is that it exists to promote the preservation of historic properties within the city of Fairfax and to foster the public's appreciation for those properties and for the city's history. Towards that end, the organization, again, as the bylaws maintain, will undertake certain activities. One of those activities I suggest to you is that we would offer advice and council to the city of Fairfax regarding programs, budgeting and pending legislation on historic aspects of the city and to serve as an advocacy group on certain historic matters. We are also charged to make recommendations regarding policy for the preservation use and operation of private and publicly owned historic Fairfax city areas and buildings. With those bylaws in mind and with that charge in mind under our authority, we believe that we are undertaking that mission even as we speak today. In that end, I think we have found through our investigation, I think you all would have to agree, that the historic values of the buildings in question have been conceded by all serious and objective historians, including the city's own office of historic resources and the Virginia State Historic Preservation Office. Again, this point has been conceded. And so what would our recommendation be? The board of the directors of HFCI met and we had a formal vote as to what we would recommend to you regarding the preservation of these buildings. We do not take that responsibility lightly. We are not wild-eyed, crazy, save anything at all costs, liberals, if you will. We are here in a serious consideration of the balancing between the economic concerns of the city and the preservation aspects that is under our care. And in that capacity, we had our vote. And we voted on a 16-1 basis in favor of preservation of those buildings. And therefore, under that authority, and as visors on historic preservation matters, HFCI would strongly endorse the preservation of these historic resources. And given that the applicant refuses to seriously consider their adaptive reuse, we respectfully would ask for the rejection of the application. Now, as regards to my personal comments, again, as an attorney with 30 years experience, over 30 years experience in real estate law, and as again a relatively new citizen of our city here, I need to first dispel, I think, three misconceptions that you all may be laboring under. One is that it has been suggested by some that the rejection of this application would somehow be an interference with the property rights of the applicant or shall we say the owner of the property, the president of the property, since the applicant will not be an owner of the property but a less e, and that it would be an interference with those rights can't amount to a legal taking. I would suggest that what we have in process is just the opposite. When the current owners purchased the property, they bought it with its present zoning of R3 and they should not have assumed that the city would come along and vote to change it to a C2 so that they could do whatever they wanted to do with that property. The second item that I wish to relieve of misconceptions, regards the current master plan. It was suggested that the current master plan would call for commercial use. I may be wrong on this, but my understanding is that the current master plan calls for a mixed use, which is consistent with the existing use. We have a combination of residential and we have light commercial and that again would be consistent with what I believe the master plan would call for. And finally, I knew there would be a finally, and I know you all were hoping there would be. I need to talk to you a little bit about the buildings themselves. When you look at the buildings as they exist right now, it even is just over 4. When you look at the buildings as they exist right now, you will understand that they have been a serious victim of what I and many people would call demolition by neglect. The owners of the last, over the last 30 years, whether by design or just by circumstance, have done this job very, very well. You look at some very sadly neglected buildings. It would take people with considerable vision to see what buildings that have gone under 30 years of neglect could look like if they were given some proper care. It would really be people with vision, but I think that some of you have seen that vision and have seen the product of that. And one last point, we would appreciate that neglected properties are the hardest to recognize as having any value. And that is why the Willard Hotel and the award department, which is the old executive office building, were slated for demolition in the 1960s. The willard was closed and in and out of litigation for 15 years before it was reopened in the 1980s. While we do not pretend that our modest few early 20th century vintage styles hold the same importance as an advisory board, we would be neglectful not to point out the significant such structures as the station master's house could play in maintaining some of the 19th century Fairfax character that exists today. These buildings are simply humble reminders of our early beginnings. And as we rock it into the- If I could get you to conclude. Yes, sir. As we rock it into the 21st century, I would suggest that before we all enter those hollow grounds behind this property, we try to figure out whether we want to use those humble reminders of those early beginnings or whether we would rather just wonder what has become of them. Thank you. Thank you. Next to sign up, John Peterson 3936, Chain Bridge Road. First of all, I want to associate myself with the HFCI testimony on this application. I'll keep my remarks brief. Reposed action is a rezoning with a Christmas tree of exceptions and special waivers for drive-through banking services and storm drainage. The rezoning and waivers of this council ask to provide would permit an intensive use of an environmentally sensitive area that also is a historic significant property. Look at the location. The property is surrounded by the city cemetery. It's used as light commercial and residential area is traditional and unobtrusive. The small areas important for several reasons. Civil war actions were fought there. March 1861, Tompkins raid. The raid came down, a river river, level river river, level river river river, level river river, level river river river river, level river river river, level river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river river and fields which now are the city cemetery and the county building. The second thing is that this area, the small area serves the terminus for the Interurban Railroad. And that's where Fairfax started as a suburban community. And we all know that's a critical part of our history in the early 20th century. And last, and I think most significant, it's the Western Gateway to the Old Town Area. It has its historic vernacular structures, but it's very important as a gateway. And when you drive, you go up that hill to where the courthouse is located. There was some talk about remediation of having pictures of this area of these buildings. What would this city be like if we had pictures of the old county courthouse or Ratcliffe Allison or pictures of the old people? Would we have people such as we have had over the last nine months becoming evening starting at the sweet life itself the historic structure and visiting downtown Fairfax. Don't think so. The site's adjacent to the cemetery is very important. It's adjacent to the cemetery, and the cemetery itself is of great historic value. It demands protection and requires compatible uses. And this is an overriding issue. Frankly, a 24 hour drive-through service with commercial lighting and a crowded paved oversight are not compatible with the adjacent use of the historic cemetery, and that is a historic cemetery. It created originally to bury Confederate dead. Everybody on this council has gone to funerals in that cemetery. Everybody on this council appreciates that setting. The residents, as Miss Cross pointed out, that really are concerned about this, are dead and buried. But they exist in the very important to the culture and the spirit of the city. Access and traffic at this intersection are large problems. This point has already been brought out. The intensive traffic, ways to try and prevent cut-throughs congestion, we're already experiencing backups on 236 of when we're heading east. The city is chewing away at the planted medians with left-hand turning lanes. The recent devastation, frankly, of the four-lane city street, Route 123, which a previous counsel back in the 1970s designated as historic way, is readily evident between Sager and Judiciary Drive, which is now a six-lane road with left hand turning lanes in Dale Luco, hard times cafe. But that's symptomatic of this problem and something we have to be very, very careful about. The site as it exists provides openness and greenery. There is an important cops of trees on the corner. Didn't show up in the photo that you just saw but look at it. Lovely, mature trees on that corner. The youth should be compatible with the transition into the housing which is across the street, the new housing coming in on Judiciary and with the historic character of this site. There are a multitude of commercial locations for a drive-through bank in the city's existing commercial areas. This application is an effort to upzone and to gain a strategic corner that in my opinion does not meet any legitimate city need and undercuts the long term objectives for preservation and enhancement of the city's charm and character. In your position as counsel, making this decision, you really in effect are physicians looking after the health of the city. Not just the tax revenues, but the character of the city in the long term destiny of the city. Follow the Hippocratic oath. First, do no harm. Do no harm. This rezoning and the requested waivers are harmful and are contrary to what this and previous councils have done in affirming and promoting the heritage and the appearance of the city. Voted down, you should do that in my opinion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. David Pumphrey. David Pumphrey, live at 10109 Forest Avenue. Thank you, Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm here as the newly elected president for HFCI. So I must say perhaps not the role I wanted to first come before you end is to talk to the subject, but that's the way the calendar fell. Both John and Mike have talked about HFC CI's position and the role in the city. So I'll speak very briefly to some of that up. HFCI is a volunteer organization, it's committed to preserving and highlighting the city's historic resources. The historic resources are an essential element that really gives Fairfax its unique character and appeal. We've been pleased to work with the City Council for a number of years and appreciate the Council's support in this mission to preserve this heritage. This year, in fact, we're looking forward to the opening of the Blenem Interpretive Center, which we think will make an important step forward in presenting our culture. So I think that first I wanted to thank the Council for the effort and support that they've given. Last year, we first voiced our opposition to the specific proposal. We came relatively late to the process. We must admit we hadn't realized we've been going on for a year and a half before we got to that point. But we made comments, as have been mentioned before, about the elimination of three buildings, which make an important contribution to the historic character. And in your packet, I believe is input from Dr. Chris Martin and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that have documented the historic value of the properties. We've expressed our support through time that some way we found to integrate the current structures into any redevelopment plan that takes place, if that is possible. Over the past few weeks, you heard that there were these discussions that were led by the control of the currency to look at mitigation efforts. We've been very dissatisfied with the outcome of those discussions. We had looked at the letter, I believe you have a copy of, which lists the options for integrating the current structures into the project. But we do not believe the PNC has given serious consideration to how that can be done. We haven't seen the supporting documentation in terms of engineering designs or architectural designs, but the documents assert that the five options presented there need to be rejected because they're either too costly. Again, we haven't seen the information that would back up the claims that were there, or that they require actions that would be unacceptable to the city. And I think that the job of the city is to make those decisions about the acceptability of the actions, that's not the applicant's position to put forward. So really, to sum up, we recognize the city needs to continue to grow its economy and we support that. But we believe this needs to be balanced with consideration of our important historic resources. We do not believe that this proposed redevelopment offers the city additional value that offsets the loss of these historic properties. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bruce Harris. Evening, I'm Bruce Harris. I live at 10411 Stratford Avenue in Fairfax City. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you tonight. I want to emphasize first that I'm a relatively disinterested person in this discussion. I've lived in Fairfax City for the past less than five years. I am not a member of the Historical Society nor am I on the board of PNC. We moved to Fairfax City because it offered the opportunity to reside in a town with some character in what we saw as an otherwise homogenized urban area. We live in an area from which we can walk downtown Fairfax in less than 10 minutes and more than that we live in a place where there is a downtown Fairfax. The confers the quality of life which has become increasingly rare, not only in Northern Virginia but in the country as a whole. I think it's important that we recognize this and I think it's even more important that we protect this. I won't take much of your time, but I want to remind you of some of the history of this discussion. I and others came before the Planning Commission only several months ago and argued that the critical element of the discussion was that it'd be a process of accommodation. It was my impression that this was accepted by the Planning Commission, but I unfortunately see little evidence of this in the subsequent development to give it too much credence possibly the subsequent development discussion. PNC proposes that it's impossible for them to preserve even a single historic building on the site on which they wish to build their facility. At no time has the public who responded to the suggestion for the PNC facility suggested that they preserve all of the buildings located on the venue. We've been more than willing to discuss alternatives to accept the loss of some buildings for the preservation of others. This spirit of accommodation appears to be alien to the business model of BNC. Well, I feel that it is also alien to the business model of consultation to the business model of citizen participation in the development process to be implemented in the place in which those citizens live. I just returned from the Solomon Islands. A country in the South Pacific, many of you might associate most immediately with the Battle of Guadalcan Island World War II. My specific job was to negotiate to consult with local landholders, traditional landowners, over the acquisition of land for a small hydro power project. The position of the government of the Solomon Islands is that in order to build such a facility, we must come to an agreement with local people concerning their needs, ensuring they are met at the same time with the needs of the developer of the hydro power facility are met. This requires flexibility on both sides. We were able to come to such an agreement, but it required that we alter the plan for the hydro facilities such that preserved areas of cultural importance to a to traditional tribal groups. As an anthropologist, I was as much interested in preserving the significant significant interests of these people as I was in providing a hydro power facility which would also work to the benefit of these people. Now, I have to ask myself, is it asking too much that we provide our citizens with the respect to believe that they, as in the Solomon Islands, can affect the decisions made with respect of the space in which they live? Is it asking too much that we accommodate different perspectives rather than accepting a single perspective as completely unalterably correct. Now as far as I can tell, there has been an assumption in this process that accommodation is not necessary. Despite the rhetoric we heard in the meeting before the Planning Commission, there has been no flexibility shown by the developer with respect to the plans for development. Why this is so I cannot say, but if I were working in the Solomon Islands or Papua New Guinea or Tonga or Samoa, I would say that this is a signal for a law. Flexibility and accommodation are the most definitive markers of the Democratic process where the constituency expresses serious reservations about potential development is exactly where the elected officials in their democracy should have the most serious reservations about the course of action being proposed by interest that are not directly accountable to the public. Where this does not occur, where there is no accommodation at all to the public expressed sentiments of concern, the course is a dangerous one that does not promote citizen participation in the decision-making process. I'll leave you with two thoughts. First, in all the presentations by the public, by the citizens of Fairfax City, I have yet to hear anyone who has wholeheartedly supported the most extreme suggestions for development by PNC. Many have supported a position of accommodation, but this has been summarily rejected by the developer, and this has uncomfortably been supported to this point by the bureaucratic and political process. Second, I cannot help but compare the process in Fairfax City to that in Vienna. As I drive through Vienna, I often ask myself where exactly is Vienna? All I see is Spritmalls, Drive-Through Banks, Gas Stations, and 711s. I know there must have been a Vienna sometime in the past, but it's been lost in this twisted morass of development, each act of which has no doubt been incremental, been argued as of little significance in a long-term scheme of things, each of which has increased I don't doubt the tax base, each act of which has no doubt increased the revenues occurring to the city, but each act of which has also inelelectably and inevitably drawn Vienna into this incoherent and undefined urban corridor that it's become today. I don't want to see Fairfax City become Vienna. I want the desires of those citizens of Fairfax City become Vienna. I want the desires of those citizens of Fairfax City who take time from their busy days and who spend energy they might well devote to other pastimes and carry in and expressing their care for the kind of town that we have. If I could ask you to come to conclusion? I can come to a conclusion. My wife might tell you otherwise, but I have. A couple of months ago on a flight from PNG, I was Papua in New Guinea. I was coming back. I was reading a book on the history of the Supreme Court. And I ran a class of quote by Judge Learned Hand, which is one of the great names for Supreme Court justice. And he said, the spirit of liberty is that spirit that is never quite certain that it is right. And I ask, we ask that you consider the possibility of the decisions to this point have been not quite right, that you reject the proposal in its present form, and then you insist on real consultation leading to real accommodation. If we made the kinds of decisions that are being discussed here today to leave a historical marker or seepia-toned photographs of places of cultural importance, if I made that suggestion to the villages in Column, Bangara and the Solomon Islands, they would have laughed me out of the village, I hear little laughter in Fairfax City and I find that sad and troubling. I think we need a bit of laughter, we need a bit of goodwill and please, as our elected representatives, ensure that compromise and goodwill prevail in this instance. Thank you for your time. Thank you. One of the tasks of a good mayor to run a meeting is to try to keep everybody within the five minute rule. And so I've allowed everybody to go over but in fairness to the rest of the agenda items tonight and the number of people in the room that are here for this item and the next. I'm going to just ask if you would please keep to the five-minute rule. There's lights on the podium that will kind of cue you when you're coming close to that. I would certainly appreciate it. Nobody else has previously signed up with anybody like to address the City Council on this item. Yes, please. Chairman. Good evening, my name is Gary Perryman. I live at 11008 Westmore Drive in Fairfax. A few months ago we had something up in here considering that floodplain before. I know we've beat the floodplain to to death but I haven't heard anybody mentioned All three of those spaces along that floodplain are being encroached the Nursing home the building of the condos and townhouses which will become totally impervious ground During a summer rain or a good spring shower a lot of water is going to be dumped there and for this bank I'd say good thing They've got a 13-foot wall. Because if you look at the lay of the land there, it all channels right to that spot. And I think you're going to find you're going to have yourself one hell of a nice pond. And this problem that we're looking at may do away with your historical problem altogether anyway, because I think you're building yourself into a flood. And I think that needs to be closely looked at. I think the council letter take a take a look at that whole strip of flood plain that you've got there and find out what is going to be the future of that flood plain with all the building that's going on and all the natural land that is not going to be soaking up that water that water is going to go down towards the cemetery and down towards these properties. And there's no place for it to go because that's your natural bottom spot in that area. So I would ask the council to take a real close look at that before they decide on anything. Thank you. Thank you. Who else would like to address the city council? Yes, please. Good evening. My name is Jordan Tannenbaum. I live at 108-8 Fieldwood Drive in Fairfax. I'm a member of Historic Fairfax City Inc. I've addressed you before. And what I'd like to do is not to repeat some of the wonderful comments that have been made. I'm speaking in favor of the preservation process. And I'm speaking for a consideration of some alternatives to the proposed project. I'd like to speak a little bit about the process that we're in and some of the next steps that Historic Fairfax City Inc has already taken. And I apologize if I arrived here a little bit late if those have already been mentioned. In the consultation process that took place, the consultation meeting has been an ongoing process for the last three or four months, but the meeting that took place on January 16th, it is true that the consulting parties there with the exception of HFCI did agree on the mitigation measures that were presented. We felt, we feel very strongly that to continue on with the process right now without the consideration of the legitimate alternatives, which has not taken place yet, would be a travesty and would be a violation of this process. Notwithstanding the fact that the Virginia Historic Preservation Officer felt that that as test had been met, we differ. It happens. The Historic Preservation Officer has his reviews. We have ours. We think that the record speaks for the fact that the alternatives to avoid or mitigate, which is one of the essential components of this historic process, this section one or such process, has not been met. It is very clear in the document that you have that December 19th PNC document that this is the case when they sum up their consideration of the five that you have that December 19th PNC document that this is the case when they sum up their consideration of the five options by saying that any, any consideration of the options herein would require re-engineering, redesign, new applications, additional consultant expenses and additional extensive reviews. Absolutely. I agree. It would, that's exactly what we are asking for. We do believe that there is a need for an additional consideration, additional review. It was only about five or six months ago that the buildings in question were determined to be historic. This project may have been planned for two years, but these buildings didn't come to the fore and their status was not determined till about four months ago. And the consideration of alternatives then has been narrowed to a process of roughly one and a half months. We don't think that that's adequate. We believe very strongly that, as I say, that the alternatives that have been presented are not, certainly are not well conceived. And we believe that there may in fact be alternatives out there that can balance the, the, the, the, now competing demands of preservation and the PNC project or progress. Therefore, we have written a letter to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Federal Agency responsible for this process, asking them to reconsider their decision not to become involved in this process. They do have the right to come back in if they feel that this process has not been carried out. I don't know whether we'll succeed or not. It is the last administrative remedy available to us in this case, and we intend to pursue that. I urgently beseech you to take advantage of the opportunity that you have to save an original part, an important part of the cultural landscape of Fairfax City, not a virtual part, but a real authentic piece of history here. I believe that it can be saved. I believe that there are ways in which to do this. I believe that there are creative solutions that we can bring to bear, and we are strongly asking you to give us the time, give PNC the time to come up with those alternatives that will address both all of the issues in this case. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the City Council on this item? Mr. O'Dell. Curial, Dell 3920, Bradwater Street. I agree with the previous speakers comments, especially those detailing the historic value of the property that is the site of the proposed development for crafts, commercial banking. The second speaker's comments that the hypocritical should be adhered to the words first, Duno harm sounded like a speech made earlier today at the National Right to Life, rally on the Maul in Washington, DC. But it still germane. The third, Mr. Pumphrey, bears interestingly the same name as the owner of the Pumphrey funeral homes or home or homes in Montgomery County. I thought therefore that he might emphasize more the preservation of graves, even if they happened not to be of historic civil war value. That's not a criticism, just an observation. The fourth speaker, like the others before him, castigated the applicant for their crass, almost distainful disregard for historic preservation. Gary Perryman, his comments about the floodplain need to be heated, even if this council historically for at least 13 years that I'm aware of, has scoffed repeatedly or at least disregarded floodplain considerations. The next speaker didn't want to repeat others' comments, so I won't repeat his. Thank you, Mr. O'Dell. Would anybody else like to address the City Council? Hearing none, let me invite would PNC like to make any final comments to the council before I close the public hearing. What would I like to say? I guess I'd like to reiterate that PNC Bank has gone through the appropriate process both within the city and in conjunction with the OCC and the State Historic Preservation Office. This is not just PNC, you know, a lot of really making a decision. This is PNC in consultation with city staff in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, in consultation with the office of the Comptroller of the Currency with the assistance of two historic consultants, both History Matters and Thunderbird, with a Phase I and a Phase II archeological study with additional consideration and thoughtful investigation by our engineer, architect, and clients. So please do not believe that we do not take this process seriously. We take it very seriously. But we have come to the conclusion that this is the right result for this site, that this is what has been envisioned for this site, and that we look forward to being members of this community and would hope that you would approve this project this evening. Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and place it in the hands of the City Council. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lyme. Okay. I move that the City Council are pursuant to the City Code Section 86-10 approve the request of PNC Bank, Catherine Puscar agent for variants to the requirements of the subdivision code section 86-7. Mr. Mayor. Excuse me. I'm sorry, the rezoning motion needs to be first. Okay. All right. I'm on the wrong page there. Sorry. Based on the public convenience, welfare and good zoning. I'll practice. I move to the City Council to adopt the attached ordinance to approve the application of PNC bank by M. Catherine Prusgar Attorney, agent to rezone the subject property from R-3 residential to C-2 retail commercial with 631-10633-10645-10649 Main Street and more particularly described as tax map parcel 57-12117-118-119. Second. Who by Mr. Lai and second and by Mr. Silver learn council comments. Mr. Reim. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I think back that the first time I think I saw this site was I think in the first year of my election was one of the first things that came up. And I remember that, you know, this property has been looked at for in my mind at least six years. And I think we've discussed this property. This property has been discussed for a very long time. And I can appreciate historic Fairfax and really where you are on the issue. And I will have to respectfully disagree, obviously, with you on this property. And I look forward to a relationship with PNC. I'm pleased to see that there's green building going on here in the City of Fairfax. I do think that they worked very hard and very diligently to compromise with us as a city. And I want to thank them for all the hard work and for the staff and all their hard work. And for the council actually, I hope that they will welcome PNC into the city. These buildings being historic, I question that and I think we can all have our differences of opinions and I think redeveloping this property is going to make this a nicer looking area. This has really been a site for sore eyes for many years. So with that Mr. Mayor, I look forward to voting yes on this project. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lyon's, other comments. Mr. Restmussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a troubling application because it has some good and some bad pieces to it. But overall, I think it's an excessive number of exceptions and variances required to pull this off. And as Mr. Peterson pointed out, and is the fact that we missed the first motion. There's really a rezoning varied in this whole thing. It really never got discussed until I believe Mr. Peterson came to the podium. And for a rezoning and the grant, which means it's a not a buy-write use. And the number of special exceptions and variances being granted, it's just not a good deal for the citizens of the taxpayers of the city of Fairfax. Most troubling to me is the intensive use that a bank promotes on an environmental, environmentally and historically sensitive area, especially the city cemetery. The cemetery was pushed from the south by the construction of the post office. It was pushed from the south east by the construction of a big parking structure, which if you go in the back corner of the cemetery, you get a nice view of a parking structure. And now it's being pushed from what's most important, the frontage of a historic cemetery, by a very busy use. And all you have to do is go a little further east to a bank, which I use very seldom, and so seldom I can't even remember its name, because it's changed three or four times since it's been there. But if you just go into that parking lot, trying to get in there and getting out on any given day, is a nightmare. And I have a feeling this is going to be the same with the intensive use of a bank on a very sensitive piece of property. For that reason, I would hope we vote it down. Thank you. Other comments by the City Council? Miss Cross? Thank you. As Mr. Rasmussen has alluded, this really is an application that has good on both sides of the question. I remember vividly perhaps two or three months after I was elected to sit here. I was asked how I liked it and I said it's fine, but everything is gray. All the issues are gray. There's no black, there's no white. And this is indeed a very gray application. I want to thank the parties involved. I don't know when we have had such eloquent speakers to an issue, whether it be Pro or Con. You all have been very persuasive. However, I intend to vote yes for this application. I think it will be indeed an addition, a valuable addition to the city, not just because it will be a commercial success. I'm certain that it will be. But I think this is a business that will be a contributor to the community and will be an extremely valuable addition to our inventory of business in the city. Thank you all for your thoughts and your guidance. It's much appreciated and it is heard. Thank you. Mr. Silverthrum. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, thank you. You know, I have spent a lot of time like my, as well. I'm sure people will wish it isn't. Let me just say I spend a lot of time on this issue like many in the room have. And while I certainly share Mrs. Cross's comments, the fact that people around this issue have been very passionate and eloquent. And speaking to it, I do have concerns about this section of land and the fact that what we have here as a group that has been willing to work, in my opinion, with the city, with historic Fairfax, with the Federal regulators, which by the way, I still have brave concerns about and I. I have not been a part of those conversations directly but have been briefed on them by our own staff, by also by others who were on the call. And I've got to tell you that while it's certainly the prerogative of anybody in this room to pursue any avenue they want, the tone and tenor of those conversations from what I have heard have not been pleasant. Certainly, that's people's choices, but I would hope that in a process in which we have local regulatory and zoning authority, people would, I think, be a little bit more constructive in the process rather than so critical? I will tell you that when it comes to historic properties, I'm very proud. I think of this Council's record and the record of actually of the last couple of decades. We have done more proactively, not reactively, but proactively in the area of historic resources and historic value and properties in the city than councils for 30 years before we took office in 1990. Or I should give the late 80s credit to Mr. Mayor with the founding of the museum. It's amazing and the kind of money we poured into it. And yet I will tell you, it never seems to be enough. And that's very disappointing to me because what we now have, in my opinion opinion is we're going after things that almost seem, in my opinion, directly, a little bit of a stretch. And this is an area in which I find, you know, I've been scratching my head throughout the entire process. When we sit here and look at, I know that people have talked to the building specifically, but we look at t-shirt checks and the like and say that these are historic in nature. This has gone too far. I think that PNC has been a good partner in the like and say that these are historic in nature. This has gone too far. I think that PNC has been a good partner in the process and I would hope that we realize that anything that takes place on this property is going to have the number of variances and accept exceptions and possibly rezoning so that it would be necessary to actually build anything on this property. This is a very difficult piece of land as we've discovered over the last few times that something's been brought before us. And more effort has been put here to make this workable for the community at large. So with that, I know I'm not gonna be enormously popular with some of my friends here in the room, but I will just tell you that this is something that I think makes good sense for the city as some of my colleagues have said and it will really clean up our city. So I look forward to supporting Mr. Mayor. Any other comments? Mr. Screenfill? I do. I'll ask the city attorney. I believe we need to do it at this point. I talked about this earlier, Mr. Sir Arthur, and I don't think you were here yet. And that's an additional condition to the general development plan. I would offer an amendment to the motion to include that condition, but I think we need to do that now, as opposed to waiting till we're dealing with dry vial changes and development at the bloodline. And since you're affecting a condition that's in a proffer, you need to ask the applicant if they're willing to accept that. We've done that. I mean, okay, certainly. Just for the record, if you'll say they'll accept that, that we'll find that. I'll read it and then ask if there is a friendly amendment to the applicant and hopefully get a second from my colleagues here. But the condition would be a six months after commencement of operations, traffic, the traffic calming measures that the Western entrance under additional drive be evaluated by staff and the applicant and that at the 12-month interval, if further changes are warranted, those will be brought back to the council after consultation with the applicant and staff for further action. Sum that the applicant will be willing to accept that? Okay, yes, the applicant will accept it. Let me see if the mover the main motion in the seconder would accept that. Okay. Yes, the applicant was accepted. Let me see if the move of the main motion in the second or would accept that as part of they would. So, well, now I'll make that a friendly amendment to the actual motion that is on the floor. Mr. Greenfield, any other comments? This has been frustrating. It's been something that I know we've heard before in terms of other proposed applications. I think an office building with a bank component was the first thing that we looked at that Mr. Keenan who used to own this property, tried to do. And at that time, we never heard any concerns with respect to historic properties. But I want to, there's two issues here. There are historical questions that have been raised about these buildings. There's issues about the interaction that HFCI or members of HFCI had with the OCC and others. So there are a number of different issues here, but if you separate all that out on, I think that those are issues that quite frankly I think we need to probably back in a different venue and have a discussion because I agree with Mr. Soorthorn. There's a proven track record for historic preservation going back to at least in my time the 94 bond rep rent where we added on to Old Town Hall and renovated that building. We added on to the Museum Visitor Center and renovated that building. We renovated and stabilized, Bracklef Allison House. We moved, Grant Mascata. We bought Blenem, we've preserved Blenem. We've approved an interpretive center of Blenem. And it does go on on. And we added, Mr. Rasmussen talked about the post office. We preserved a portion of the old railway bed along the post office property at the request of the Sturker Fairfax. Somewhere in this particular discussion, communication broke down between the Council and the HFCI, and that's unfortunate, and that's caused some feelings to be heard. That's something I hope we visit and try to resolve. Kelly, there may be some historical significance with this one building, but these are I-sources. I mean, they have been degradated for over 30 years, and I think a couple of representatives of HFCI spoke to that. I'm sensitive to the comments that have been made with respect to being entrants to the downtown, difficult issues that you hear, but there's going to be difficult issues no matter what you do or the option is to continue to allow these buildings to sit there on private property and allow them to continue to downhill. This is one issue that I think we will have to agree to disagree, but I would say that I for one I'm committed to separately going back to opening up some dialogue with HFCI so that we revisit some of those issues dealing with whether it's the charter or the mission, making sure that the mission of HFCI and the council are still the same as we continue to move forward. So I will support the motion to approve the bank on this location. Thank you, Mr. Greenfield. If there are no other comments, we'll call the motion. All in favor of the motion is signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Let the record show that it passed by a vote of five to one with Mr. Rasmus and voting accounts. Now there's a second motion. Four more. Go ahead, Mrs. Lyne. Maybe I'll share these motions here, but I'll do this one. Okay. I move that the City Council pursuant to the City Code Section 86-10 approve the request of PNC Bank Catherine Puscar agent for a variance to the requirements of subdivision codes Section 86-7 to permit a subdivision of land without providing the required public right away for the property located at 10-631, 10-633, 6, 3, 3, 10, 6, 4, 5, and 10, 6, 4, 9, main street. In more particularly described as tax map, parcel 57, 1, 2, 1, 17, 1, 18, 1, 19, and finds that one, there are extraordinary circumstances where in the application requirements of chapter 86 of the city code would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or hardship upon the owner of the City Code would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or hardship upon the owner of the property. And two, the requested variance can be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of Chapter 86 of the City Code. Sir, second. Second. Moved by Miss Lyon, Seconded by Mrs. Winner, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and at pass, she nanom see with Mr. Rasmussen absent. That you want to ask? Okay, yeah. All right. I move that the City Council approve the conditions number one and number two, below the request of PNC, Catherine Puscar agent and attorney for a special use permit. Pursune to the city code section 111-110-158-2. To redevelop in the floodplain on the premises known as 1063-1 through 1063-33 to 1064-5, 1064-9 Main Street. And more particularly described as tax map parcels 57-1 to 117-118-119. Condition 1. Architecture, the architectural design of the proposed building shall substantially conform to the character and quality of the building of elevations, signage, retain walls, plantings, and lighting based on the community appearance, plan, guidelines, and BAR approval. Condition 2, streetscape. The design of the streetscape shall substantially conform to the community appearance plan guidelines in the Main Street corridor that pertain to this location and BAR approval. Second. Moved by Miss Lyons, seconded by Mr. Silverthorn in any discussion. All in favor of the motion is the signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a pass, she and the Ames unanimously, with Mr. Rasmussen not present. Mr. Mayor, I'm on the City Council, approve the request of PNC, Bank Catherine Puscar, Attorney Agent for a special use permit, pursuant to City Code Section 110782, to allow a financial institution with two drive-through lanes on the premises known as 10-631-10-633, 10-645, 10-649 Main Street and more particularly, 9. Second. Moved by Ms. Lyon, seconded by Ms. Winner, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Are opposed? No. And it passed by a vote of 5 to 1 with Mr. Rasmus and voting against. Mr. Mayor. Ms. Lyon. The last one, finally. I move that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to approve to modification of the stacking space requirement. And pursuant to city code section 110-156, a special exception to modify the loading space requirement on the premises known as 10-631-10633, 10-645, 10-649 Main Street. And more particularly described as tax map parcel is 57--2-117-118-119. Second. Moved by Ms. Lines, seconded by Ms. Seventhorn, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? No. And passed by a vote of 5-1 with Mr. Estima-sen against. All right. That now brings us down to item number 7b, which is a public hearing council action and a request of ASE retail applicant slash Leasees for a special use permit to allow a pizza delivery service on the property known as Main Street Marketplace Address 103, 30-344 Main Street. Is this from properly advertised? Yes. Staff report, please. Thank you, Noble Mayor and Council. The second application before you is from Paisano. It's a P3 service that's seeking to, especially this permit, to out of the library service in the old town center and the main street marketplace shopping center. The site itself is located of only highway and east street. I would say only highway and east street entrance. This would be north street. It's at the corner of this building. It's the last unit. And that unit was for me, the Learning Center. And next to this, obviously, we're familiar with the chain of other retailers such as Starbucks and Repost Office. And this is now Walgreens. And to the south, here is residential here with commercial to the west here as well. And that is the building site. Approximately the use in that space, again, formula occupied by the learning center is about 1,400 square feet. Proze use is located, the owner, I'm sorry, the owner wishes to offer the PTA-Livit service to customers and surrounding and commercial residential neighborhoods, particularly that area, but serving a wider radius as well. This only goes and does allow, especially, food establishments to operate a delivery service, again, by the special use permit that is requested. About 80% of this business, based on the submit application, will be delivery and takeout. There will be no full eating service. There will be a small space consisting of nine barstools available for customers as a waiting area and grabbing a quick meal. The proposed hours operation, the applicant indicated tonight, you like to change them. Originally, we had a list in the application for 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. You like to change that to 11 a.m. to 12 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. as opposed to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. The Complan Land and Reconciliation Support proposed delivery service. Complan has the most development of local serving businesses at this location, particularly the main street harder. In addition, it means the economic goal of encouraging business that are complementary to residential interest and delivery service will be accommodating to residential interest. In terms of other issues and impacts, we look at what's traffic and parking. In terms of traffic, to the site, there will be no increase in generation, traffic generation to the site. It's occupying a space that was formed occupied by a use that would probably have a long term use in terms of parking and a use that wouldn't, negligible numbers that would increase any traffic to the site. In fact, a lot of traffic and a lot of cars wouldn't be coming here for the delivery service to the library. It would be going out by the 8 and it would be 8 delivery vehicles with that. No parking would be affected as plenty of parking with this site. Staff's approved, recommends approval with subject for three conditions. Again, one will be changed. The first one is the hours delivery shall be limited to the hours of operation from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Sunday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Again, the applicant will still change the 10 p.m. for the Sunday through Thursday to 12 p.m. and for Friday and Saturday to 1 p.m. The applicant shall be limited to eight delivery vehicles which is indicated with the application that remain off site when not in use. So will not be on site. And especially, the specialist permit should not be transferred to another business entity. They will have to come in and relook at the specialist permit again. And with that I conclude the presentation. Questions and staff. Harry Nunn, this is a public hearing. We'll open up the public hearing and we'll invite the applicant to address the City Council. Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. My name is William Schmitt. I'm the attorney. I have an office here in the City of Fairfax and I represent AAC Retail Inc. Doing business as Paisanos. I believe that Paisanos will be an excellent addition to the business that is located within the City of Fairfax. It already has four locations in Fairfax County. Two of those are located in Centerville. One is located in Fairlikes and one in Chantilly. Mr. Fawad-Creatham, who is here this evening, is the owner of Pizano's. He is a lifelong resident of this area. He attends the Truro Church and has been very active in the local area and in this community. He's a big supporter of the Fairfax City Police. He has supported the Fairfax Law Foundation and particularly has been a sponsor every year for our Jazz for justice program. He's a person that's committed to this area because he's lived here, was raised here, and has been in the rest from business all of his life as his family was before him. We are asking for that slight amendment to the recommendations of staff with respect to the hours. During the week we would request that they be permitted to be open until 12 a.m. and then on Saturday and Friday and Saturday nights till 1 o'clock a.m. The reason for that is that they will be doing a lot of business associated with or hopefully with George Mason University for the students that are involved in studying all night, they get hungry and they'll be able to deliver to that area. We look forward to the opportunity to serve the City of Fairfax as he has done so successfully in Fairfax County. Thank you very much and I'll answer any questions that any of you might have. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Mr. Greenfield? Yes, sir. I assume at this point, he used to retail, his, hold the business license to operate at this location. At the time of the filing, they had not, but I realized that. They have. Yes, sir. And this, the same family that, I think, his father operated in the market in hand. That's correct. Yes, sir. Mr. Greenfield, that is correct. And in fact, this father is here this evening in support of this. Thank you. Mr. Dines. I just have a couple questions about I guess delivery. Now does that mean the service because some of the folks that start delivery services here only say we're only going to go to certain spots. So will this service do the whole radius of the city, are six square miles? Well, currently my fair lake store already comes into the city, so it wouldn't be a true four mile, three to four mile radius, no more than that. So I guess I don't understand. So in other words, you have another restaurant that services a certain part of the city already? Yes, I have a store in Fair Lakes which comes down to the intersection of Pass Wacles Mill to the intersection of 29 and 50. Okay. Into the city. Okay, but this then would service the rest of the city. Yes, so. Okay. And then where would you be, these delivery cars? Are they owned by the different delivery people? Yes, we own no vehicles. And so those folks then would have their sign, magnetic signs put on and then taken off and that's how they do. Absolutely. Okay, so you wouldn't have to worry about any storage at all. Yes, ma'am. Right. Okay. There would be no vehicles overnight at the Main Street Marketplace. Okay. And then, you know, it's okay. That's all the questions I have thank you And mr. Rasmussen thank you mr. To follow that up where will the vehicle stage for deliveries? We have a designated area by the landlord which is the second row not the first row of parking that anything second-room beyond So they will allow the park in any of that parking area as long as it's in the second row or beyond So you're all your to build all your delivery vehicles will be parking in a lot then. Yes, in the shopping center. Okay, thank you. But they would not remain there overnight. Right. Thank you very much. Any other, Mr. Winner? Thank you. Would all eight vehicles be working all these hours or is it that you're having shift work where there would be, you know, in the nine to 12 shifts say you'd have two people delivering. So it's not as if there's going to be eight cars delivering 12 hours a day. Absolutely right. There will not be eight cars delivering it all day. Like during our lunch service, we run roughly three cars. Three cars, okay. I was just giving that absolute maximum that how many cars I would need to have at any time. Okay. Including all the, so all the deliveries, all the employees that would be delivering are included in that eight. Yes. Basically, okay. thank you. Sure. Any other questions? Very none. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up when anybody would like to address the City Council on this item. Mr. O'Dell. I would like to suggest that you require that all the vehicles used by the drivers the company owned. I used to deliver flowers and was intrigued to hear my insurance company tell me that had had an accident using my vehicle to distribute the company's flowers. My insurance would have been canceled. And you know how pizza delivery drivers drive. Thank you, Mr. Duh. Would anybody else like to address the City Council on this item? Harry Nguyen, would the applicant like to make any final comments to the City Council? Mr. Mayor, if I may address the Councillors for a moment. Mr. Cretam is very proud of the record that his drivers have had during the time that he was operated before, stores located in Fairfax County. No accidents, no problems of any nature with any of his drivers. He's very proud of that fact, and he will make sure that that would continue here in the city of Fairfax. There are a whole lot of reasons why we don't have company-owned vehicles. But suffice it to say that, he will make sure that his drivers are properly instructed as they have been at all of his other stores about how to conduct themselves. And the key to his business is this delivery service, so he certainly would not do anything to hamper that and all. Thank you very much. We will now close the public hearing and place it in the hands of the City Council. Ms. Cross. I move the City Council approved a request of AIS and TL Corporation by William L. Schmidt and Associate's PC agent for a special use permit as required by Section 110-782-A5 of the city code to allow delivery surface that Pizano's located at 103-3-0 main street and further identified as tax map parcel 57402-119 with the following conditions. The hours of delivery shall be limited to 11am to 12am. 12am to 12am. Sunday. Through Thursday. And 11am to 1am. Friday and Saturday. The applicant shall be limited to eight delivery vehicles that will remain off site when not in use. And this special use permit shall not be transferable to another business entity. Second. Moved by Mrs. Cross, seconded by Mrs. Winner, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a pass unanimously. That now brings us to items 7C Public Hearing Council Action on an ordinance of the code of the City of Fairfax Virginia pertaining to cigarette taxes. This has been properly advertised. Yes. Staff report, please. This has been properly advertised. Yes. Staff report, please. Welcome, Mr. Johnson. Good morning, or good evening. Good morning. I have been here that long. Yeah, yeah. Seems like we have a couple more hours. What you have before you tonight is largely a housekeeping adjustment to our city cigarette tax ordinance to reflect some changes that were that occurred in the state code. The most substantive changes are an increase in the late filing amount from $500 to $1,000 and an increase in the surety bond for registered agents from a maximum of $50,000 to $150,000 or 150% of gross. And other than that, we are, as you know, a part of a consortium of localities, making up the Northern Virginia cigarette tax board, and our ordinance will conform to a Northern Virginia model ordinance. Questions of the Commissioner Revenue? Harry Nunn, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up when anybody likes to address the City Council on this matter. Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and place it in the hands of the Council. Councillor Southerner. I moved to approve an ordinance amending chapter 90 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia by deleting Article 8 and replacing it in its entirety with the new article 8. Second. Moved by Miss Winter, seconded by Mrs. Lyon, any discussion? I'll, I'll am favor the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And a pass unanimously. That, now, it brings us to, there are no items under eight. So item number nine, which is presentations by the public, on any item that is not on tonight's agenda, but does have of interest to the City of Fairfax. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody like to address the City Council, please. Gary Perryman, 11008 Westmore Drive, also present to the Westmore Citizens Association. I have several things to bring up real quickly, Hopefully, it didn't take for a few minutes. You should have gotten a letter this evening concerning the planning commission. I'll read it real quick. It says, it's come to my attention that Ross Landis has applied for a position of city planning commission. The Westmore Citizens Association would like to express our strong support for his nomination. By the way, the mayor was there this week and it was a unanimous vote on that particular item. Ross is an enthusiastic member of association since it was revitalized two years ago. From designing printed materials, cleaning up after picnic, detending functions at City Hall is always glad to help whenever and wherever he is needed. Ross also serves as our eyes and ears, I've got to forgive him, my glasses aren't with me. On our community, he regularly attends the City Council meetings and the Planning Commission meetings and reports back to our neighborhood on items of interest. His knowledge of current events and the inner workings of our city has proven invaluable on numerous occasions. Ross rarely misses an association meeting and participates actively into our discussions. He's always open-minded and makes an effort to carefully gather all the facts on a particular topic before voicing an opinion. It is not unusual for him to visit the library or the courthouse and yet an effort to gather more information on an issue. We are confident Ross will extend his work ethics to the planning commissions and his appointment will be an asset to the entire city signed by me. Ross has worked with the planning commission. I know sitting in on it and he has gained some invaluable knowledge concerning how the workings are done and just for my own point of view he would make a great addition to our city planning commission. Next item I would like to bring up a letter that you should have also received as the mayor letter and the city of members of the city council. As of January 15, 2007 meeting a Westmore citizens the following motion was passed unanimously. We would hope that the Northern Virginia Christian Academy and the city can come to agreement which would allow Westmore school building to remain in its current use. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the Westmore Citizen Association's song strongly supports the conversion of the school building and its grounds into public park and open space. Additionally, we would support the construction of ball fields on the site. We plan to assemble a citizen's task force to further investigate needs of the community with regards to the school property. This issue has been up before that end of the city doesn't have a great deal of green space other than the school yards or self. If the school is not to be deemed used as a school after I'm assuming June, we would like to see that turn to green space for ball fields put in play equipment for the children. It is completely surrounded by communities and it would be a great asset for our communities and the cities to use as a park. It's easily accessible. It has parking available so it can be used by the whole city. So I would like to City Council to please consider that if it would come to that step. Next it was brought up at our meeting concerning the esterns in the city. Several people have mentioned that the, when it rains, the markings for the S-turns become invisible. And even when they're not invisible, you can't keep the people to stay in their lanes. I drive a full-size pickup truck, and I've almost been hitting the S-turns a couple times. It's a problem that needs to really be looked at. Yes, ma'am. We're talking about where you changed going down where the new construction is. North Street where they they come out by Toro Church and F turn that that's from turn right. The people do not stand their lanes and I mean like I say if you drive a large vehicle, it's tough to get through there. If you're on the inside track because people cut you off. So I would ask the city to take a look at that and see if there's any way one to make the marking a little bit more visible when it rains. The lighting there's not all that great to start with and when it gets wet, the lines do disappear. I mean, I can see them, but a lot of people in our community say they're out. The last thing I have for you at our last meeting, the City Council meeting, the daycare center on Germantown Road was brought up. I myself have gone down there and looked at that spot. The particular properties on the inside part of the curve there, and I brought it up to your staff's attention. If you allow the daycare to go in there and don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with daycares. I have one directly across across street from my house. But the people who pull into that driveway are going to have to back out on German town road. And anybody that goes down German town road during rush hour realizes that would be very dangerous. You're going to create a lot of accidents, a lot of problem. And I hate to say to somebody that you can't put a business in their house, but I think this would be a really dumb plan to go with. And it needs to be looked at and see if we want to go further with that or not. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council? Mr. O'Dell. Gerry O'Dell, 3920 Brevard, whether you are reasonable, that is, to say pro-life or crassly pro-choice, that is, to say pro-merger, you have an important duty to vote in Virginia's presidential primary this year on February 12th, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln who fought so that men could be free, assuming, of course, your registered vote in the common law for Virginia. The National Right to Life has a website that, www.nrlc.org, that shows the faces of the Democratic and Republican candidates with labels of their highest political office, those contending for U President. And documents, their positions on three important life issues. One, the repeal of Roe versus Way to the ban of the partial birth abortion. And the three banning embryonic stem cell reached research in December 1. It made a similar speech. The third choice was Supreme Court appointments. They modified the website. Shamedly, not one of the Democratic candidates takes a pro-life position on any of those three issues. They are all therefore unfit to serve in public office at any level, just like most people at that diast right there. A second helpful website is cc.org Christian Coalition. Republican Giuliani, McCain and Romney fail on sticking with this first site. They fail on the by allowing stem cell research. Julianne is openly pro-choice so obviously fails in row versus weight. McCain prefers that states take up the issue of row versus weight passes the buck and favors in other words, morals by location, which is an assenite concept promoted by this Supreme Court previously. Julienne nonetheless prefers to honor women's right to choose. That is to say, right to kill their own babies. Ron Paul regrettably supported, according to this website, embryonic stem cell research. So he fails that test. But his supporters at the pro-life March today disputeist, I urge them to advise the website to be addressed, dated if it needs to be. Another helpful website, CCTOTLRG, or that I have myself, has a link to the scorecard that shows how all of the candidates for president who are currently in comments of either the House or the Senate on Capitol Hill have voted in the past on 13 House bills or six Senate bills. Most of the issues were directly pro-life, some were more tangential involving positions on conservative issues that are more economic or patriotic. Since patriotic concerns don't cost money, I included those in the ones that I consider most important. And now on those issues, Hillary Clinton and John E. Roberts, both scored zero. Strangely, Obama's record is not reported. A previous incumbent is listed. Dodd scores zero by 16%. McCain scores 83%, but on the four of the six Senate issues that are really pro-life, McCain scores 100%. But we call a flunk adult, I mean, embryonic stem cell research on the other website. So he's not ready pro life. Doesn't understand. Doesn't have the brains. Although it's good in many other respects. Ron Paul scored 76% 71 on the really pro life questions. Who sentenced 25 on the actually pro life issues. Seven of them. He's voted for three of them or 43%. And Duncan Hunter, 100% and Tom Panquet or 100%. Isn't it regretable, oh, by the way, I heard on the radio show tonight, Mark Levin, that Thompson has withdrawn. And I have to, in the 20 seconds left, observe isn't it strange and regrettable that there were so many pro-life candidates in this race at the outset that they fractured the vote and many of them have met an early demise. That's a shame. We need the Osteian ballot that I've advocated. That would fix that in early. Would anybody else like to address the City Council? Harry, none. We will close. The agenda item number nine and go to number 10, which is the approval of the January 2008 regular meeting. So moved. Moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mrs. Lyon, any discussion? I was absent at that meeting. Let the record show that Mrs. Cross was absent. We'll have to say. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a passed unanimously. Now we will recess into our work session. We're going to actually stay, Mr. Sisson in this room as I understand it. We have a number of items on the agenda for tonight, and at the least of which is 12 A, which is a discussion of the proposed community center. Mr. Sisson? The Court makes its way to the podium. I just would introduce this topic by stating that this item was requested by the council for further address in this work session. I've asked Mr. McCarty to put together kind of a series of issues related to the discussion of the community center from which the staff needs some specific direction as much as possible this evening for us to get underway with this important new initiative of the city. So, Mr. McCarty. Wait, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, there are staff ins. Mr. Sisson indicated we're seeking direction on five items here this evening. Really to clarify the timeline of construction, scope of design, funding, public input, and outreach, and operating issues. To clarify this timeline of the community center based on updated information from the Hughes Group Architects who worked on the feasibility study, roughly they estimate anywhere from 10 to 12 months of a design process, two months of a bidding process, and anywhere from 13 to 15 months of a construction process. If you map that out, if we started in May of this year for the design process, where we'd have a completion of September of 2010, leaving us about two months before the completion of the agreement. Really, that kind of being the driver to make sure that we start on this. We're also seeking direction on this, the sculptor design and actually what we will be going out if securing an architect for, to design for a community center. I think the other three items will fall into place once we have some direction. So turn it over to you folks. OK. Let's just dive right into it. Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before I start, I want to preference my comments. Now this is an exciting opportunity for the city to somebody who served on Prague before I came on council. We talked back then about assessing the need for a center, looking at taking stock of what we had, trying to decide what we were lacking, what we had available to us, what we had available to us just outside the city. I'm going to talk about that. I'm referring to Oak Mar and the swing facilities, or even now, George Mason University. So we've been talked about this for a long, long time. And as you look at the infrastructure and the investment in the infrastructure that we've done over the last 18 years, you include the efforts of Mr. Silverthorn, Mr. Rasmussen, even go further back to Mr. Letterer's time. It is astounding. But I like the way he positioned that. What we have held just now. How did you run a general letterer? far would you like me to go to that? It's astounding what we've been able to do, but the one thing that I think is missing, I know the chair on top of the Sunday, is a community center, a place where you can bring everybody together. Luckily, by a generous gift of the Sherwood family, we're now able to sit up here and talk about that item because of the lion's share of those costs that have been dealt with by that donation. I took the opportunity of working with staff over the last several weeks. I shared that with all of you via email, wait yesterday, early this morning, would be a compromise if you will. Kind of an option to a, it's my belief that the family gave a $5 million gift to build a community center. Not a $5 million gift to build a community center, move escape board park, redo trails, completely redo Van Dyck Park to be able to accommodate that community center. In that vein, I would propose that we look at taking that entire $5 million and put that toward the construction of a building. When you do that, you come up with a 25,000 square foot building. In that 25,000 square foot building, you're able to accomplish everything that we are doing at Green Acres right now. You give dedicated senior space, you give gymnasium space, not out of full size basketball court, but you give gymnasium space that's available for the teen center available for Green Acres. It gives you a nice banquet room, which we are desperately lacking. The most that you can do at Old Town Hall is, I think, 150, maybe 175 people depending on whether it's a full sit-down dinner or not. So you're able to accomplish everything that you would be looking at in an option three, which would be that really big 32,000 square foot building, but the building would be constructed in such a way that in the opportunity, if we ever had to go to the bigger space, you could add onto this building and not have to look at another location and another building. I'm not advocating at that at this time. I think we can get a lot in this 25,000 square foot building. I think when you look at some of the other things that we have built with the idea of community space and mind, blind and interpretive center comes to mind, all of our schools come to mind that those are all built with community use. But this is something that pulls everyone together in one location. The Boy Scouts can meet there, the Girl Scouts can meet there, you accomplish the needs of the arts community, you are able to accomplish what the family is looking for. And so I would propose tonight that if we can agree that we put the $5 million toward the construction of the building, then the city needs to come up with how we pay for the design, the site work, all of the remaining things that we would need to do to actually get the building built. And then I think that you go on from there, Mr. Mayor, I don't know if you want me to cover that now, but in terms of the community process and what you go out to the community, you go out to the seniors and you say, okay, here's how much space you're going to have. We'd like your input on how you're going to design it. Commission on the Arts, here's what, how much space you're going to have. You get that buying and that feedback and you go out into the community, what you've talked to Oedley Hills, you talked to Country Club Hills, Great Oaks, Farcroft, those people that live along Oedley Highway and will certainly be impacted by a community center there. So that's why we throw out first as a point of discussion. We can throw me out of the bus or we can hopefully agree that maybe this isn't a bad way to move forward. Thank you. Mr. Greenfield, let me just certainly applaud your efforts in trying to find that kind of, I can use the phrase, the sweet spot in terms of the dialogue and the discussion of what is right and size and community interests, and I know we have to get an awful lot of feedback. I'd like to just share if I could, in the most delicate way that I can, I had the opportunity to spend some time as did Mr. Sissin, and then in a follow-up discussion with Mrs. Sherwood. And what I heard from those dialogue and discussion, as passionately as it could be expressed was, please let's take the gift in the spirit it is. Please let's move forward so that it's something that she would be able to enjoy and see the completion of certainly in her lifetime. And please, let's try to find a way as a community to come together and not make this controversial and take the gift and the spirit that it was given. And I applaud your efforts, Mr. Greenfield, in trying to find that that compromise. Clearly, there's someone on one side that these are about to hear in a work session. I have in a few minutes. This is going to be certainly, I would say, the most difficult budget that we will be presented in all the years that I've been on the city council. The timing in terms of the economy and all the other things probably couldn't be worse for this particular project. The thing that I've heard from the community, I had a chance to spend some time with folks that were very involved in the senior center was, whatever you build, build it right, build it first class, and build it in the opportunity that the community as time goes on and needs change, and we learn from experiences that can be expanded. It's my understanding that this plan, and I think Mr. Greenfield, the spirit of years would be to build whatever we can get and to start the process immediately, but then also continue to design it and whatever dream a future counsel or a future community would want to do. So I certainly would applaud that effort. I would urge my colleagues whatever we do to try to find a way to work through it as a council to come up with a compromise so that we can start this project immediately. If everything comes together right, I think we're probably at least two years of, I followed your schedule and it's probably a little bit more than that as we've learned from our experiences. Even if tonight we start at the project and direct it staff to move forward. And so certainly I think in the spirit of the donation and the gift time is as important as anything. So again, I applaud your efforts, Mr. Greenfield, and your leadership in that area, please. Thank you. I haven't been able to find a sweet spot on a golf course in a long time, so I thought I'd try it here tonight with a community center. But in all seriousness, the other thing I forget failed to mention and I think it is an important one is, with the 25,000 Superfoot Building, you are able to move everything out of green acres and so we are not dealing with having operating costs for two facilities. We're not dealing with having staff at two facilities and I think that that's a real bonus and I think whatever we do, whatever size building we agree on that we need to make sure that we are not operating to facilities. Thank you. Other comments? Mrs. Winter, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I concur with everything that Mr. Greenfield says. However, I also think we need to look to professionals who have built community centers before for our size city to see what recommendations they might have on the size of say the teen facility or the size of the senior facility. I'm not a planner. I'm not a planner. I'm a physical therapist. So when it comes to building a community center, I might think that one group might need a certain amount of space where I don't have the background nor the knowledge to make and educate it even guests at that. I, too, am very thankful to the Sherwoods for setting, getting the fire going for this community center. But I think it would be short-sighted if we did not take what Mr. Greenfield suggests and look a little beyond it, look to putting in more investment. Yes, we are in a very difficult time, but some of the best decisions are made during difficult times when you have to be a little bit more creative and a little bit more inventive. And if you look at the debt service, the debt service that we have goes down. It begins to go down in 2009. So it's not as if that can be an issue. We can look at how much it's going to be going down and maybe consider that. We do have the lowest tax rate in the area. It might be worth looking at a penny or two so that this can become a reality that other jurisdictions will be envious of. Thank you. Other comments? Ms. Thank you. I'll go comments miss cost you. Thank you. I'm intrigued with the suggestion that Mr. Greenfield has made. I do think that none of us are expert at the planning for these kinds of facilities. And I would certainly want to employ an expert in that field but the concept of using the $5 million for construction only is very I think it is my understanding that our monies are now for this project came all as one one bulk sum and those are in the investment phase and currently drawing whatever interest we can find which isn't very useful this time of year or I mean this is. Is it four and a quarter just went down. I think four and a quarter. But the point is that the money is growing and that's a very good thing. I would say again, kind of reiterating what Mr. Rasmussen said the last meeting. I think this is a time when certainly we want outreach into the community, but we want to, in addition to General Comet, are those opinions from our arts groups, our parks and recreation groups, people that have expertise and fields that none of us do. For instance, those that are expert in visual arts and what is needed in the way of north light and windows and that sort of thing for that. And these are things that I don't, I just have the most sketchy kind of knowledge of. Practice rooms have to be soundproofed and certainly of a dimension that you can have a piano and an instrument instrument in the room. So there are details, and I think the task force of individuals from the community in addition to expert planners is something that we really need to pursue. I would recommend that we point a task force for that kind of input. It's all very exciting and certainly an opportunity that we should embrace with a lot of enthusiasm in this little acrimony as possible. It's a wonderful gift to the city. And I think we should be moving on this as soon as possible because we absolutely have headlines to meet and obligations to fulfill. So I think an appointment of a task force would be a very good idea composed of those folks in the community with specific knowledge of the arts and the physical programs, senior programs, all of that. Thank you. Mr. S. Mussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask a question of Mr. McCarty and maybe Mr. S. Musin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask a question of Mr. McCarty and it may be Mr. Sissin. If we, if could we start off with option, what is style here is option 2A, do the actual starting of the construction planning, engineering drawings, all of that. While we at the same time pursue how it is we might fund this, so that we got to a point several months down the road where we would still meet the timeline for awarding a contract to produce this in the two-year timeframe we want to do to meet the needs of the agreement with the family. But at the same time figure out what our budget situation is and how we would pay for this. I don't know if that's a question that's understandable or not. If I understand it, I think really can we begin the design process and answer the funding question of if when we get to the bidding of the construction contract, how would we pay for that at a later time? I believe that you- Mr. Asthmus, I guess I would answer it by saying if we begin the process, we sort of need to know, you know, on the front end, how, you know, what our financial resources are going to be. But I guess you could design a process where the building would be somewhat design modular fashion so that pieces could be added or subtracted once we know the size of the resources we'll have and how we're going to raise that money. Right. That's kind of what I was thinking. The initial three concepts were designed with that in mind, with the site with the building itself. And if you throw in a 2A, a 25,000 square foot facility, say you could even scale that piece back or if you did at 32 and some other donor came forward, there's the potential to add on if you did that type of design work. Well, if I could just before we go on for that, not that this is the direction we have to go, but I think Mr. Greenfield, the spirit of what he was suggesting, if we took the 5 million, and clearly we're going to make some interest on it and say, you know, we're going to make interest for two years because the project won't be completed and something could figure out how we're going to strip out money for deposits and construction as you move along or whatever. So if you add it to the five million, whatever interest we would have by the time we were cutting the ribbons. And then you pull out of your plans, the cost, and I quite frankly have taught my head, don't remember what they were to build, to move the skateboard park and the privy in and the volleyball courts and the play taught lots and all the things that was in that original proposal. Where are we? Mr. Greenfield said 25,000 square feet. Option two is a 20,000 square feet and option three is a 32,000 square feet. But can you just share with us if we followed the spirit of that what we would be looking at money wise and Sure, this might help out. I have the architects update the list and I got the information this morning. Please The top part has been updated to include all four of the options now with the building cost, site cost, total cost of construction, escalation, soft cost. Building costs, for instance, are the 2A, the 25,000 square foot facility. The building is $5 million, it's $200 square foot. The site cost is 1.2 million. So total construction cost including site is 6.2. You add in the escalation, soft cost which is design, permitting, and so forth is about 1.8 million. So for 25,000 square foot facility, grand total being about 8.6 million Is that 8.6 million so we would be the city's portion that would be 3.6 million 3.6 Is that that that was yes, you take the five million now gift put that toward the the construction the To the building cost and then the city is responsible to figure out how we are going to finance the 3.6 million dollars, whether it's through combination of interest earned on the donation. It's money saved from the linear project. It's other donations, whatever it might be. or we go out into a bond referendum in a November election to finance whatever is left at the end of the day. That's what I think is the intent of what we should try to do. Okay, quite frankly to be honest, I didn't realize we were talking about that substantial amount of commitment. I mean, the one thing I would encourage us and hope we would do is we move forward is, I think we have to be a little careful in this first phase. The center can't be all things to all people. We just built a new linear with two basketball courts, a provenance elementary with a expanded basketball courts and bleachers and Daniels run with a similar type situation. The only thing, I mean to me and certainly the spirit of the donation and I thought what we were going was to really focus on the ballroom space, the theater space, the rehearsal space, the community space, the ability to have a banquet, which we don't have now somewhere in the city short of, all town hall, which you exceed the numbers in about 100 people. And I guess in the 25,000 square foot, I'm assuming Mr. Greenfield that that included. Yes. Well, just out of curiosity, if we stripped out the, and I understand the intent with the senior center and some of those sort of things, but what would happen in Phase 1 cost-wise, if we stripped out the basketball portion, but we stayed with the top-notch community center with all the things that would be left over? What does that get us? Well, the way the charts broken out of it's broken out of community spaces, recreational spaces, admin building support, which includes like lobby bathrooms and kitchen. Community spaces include the banquet room and the 25,000 square foot option, just to try to get to that number, we shuffled around the square footage a little bit, you know, a banquet facility of about 4,000 square feet rehearsal room, which is about 1200 square feet as part of the agreement, the family, the preschool, room, teen room, seniors, the center at I guess what I'm trying to get down is under recreational spaces. You got a 6,000 square foot gymnasium. Well, if that got stripped out, well, actually we understood that there would be 3,500 square feet so you would drop a 3,500 square feet from the total. Which is small, though, the space stamp, but if we stripped that out, what would that get us to, cost-wise and square footage wise? Obviously, you'd be closer to the 21-22. All right, so 20. Yeah. Yeah, certainly. Well, but you got locker rooms. You've got things that, quite frankly, we don't even have over the other one. Fitness is what? That's amazing. It's roughly about 4.5 million. If you get down to like 22,000 square foot facility, if you pull that out, we'll say the recreational space. The whole, all of the recreational spaces about 8,000 square feet, you're down. Now you below the 20,000 square foot mid-option. So you're down to, what's that? You gotta do about that. I just think we are going to be hard pressed. I might be wrong and certainly we can agree to differ on this, but in light of all of the infrastructure and the investment we made in this community, I feel very confident in going to the community and talking about a first-class community center of the 20,000 square foot range and the things in the spirit of the agreement and the rehearsal rooms and all the banker rooms and stuff. I just think it starts to fall apart if we then go and say we need now another million or two million or whatever it's gonna cost to include a gymnasium when we've just done two or three of them that I can think of. We've got a fitness center at the police department and some of the things like that that I think if we're trying to, I'm considering Oatmar and Fairfax High School that just got redone and all the things with it, I just think that starts to deviate from the focus of what the intent was. Mr. Mayor. Yes, please, Mr. Greenfield. I think what you have to keep in mind is, and I'm not looking to spend more money here. That's the last thing I'm trying to do, but I am trying to keep in mind that we're and you can do that by rolling those things that are going on there into a community center. If you go over there now when you look at what the seniors you're using it for and you look at the exercise space and I think what Mr. McCarty is trying to do here is make sure that they have exercise space in a community center that they can still use. That if you start stripping a lot of those things out, they are not going to have that ability to have those facilities. I was over there Friday. It is amazing how many people are in just that room alone, let alone everything else that's going on. I think Mr. McCarty and I saw a little bit more than we probably should have seen in some tap valley. It has down the hall. And let's just say it indicated a need for some changing rooms that they have that are dedicated. Fortunately, we kept walking. So I might have lost a few votes. We slowed down too much there. But so it's trying to make sure that we're doing it in the spirit of doing this right it's not trying to just say let's spend as much money as we can I agree with if there's things that we can possibly cut out then absolutely we should explore it but we all know that it is difficult to work with the schools and get them to provide any, quote, gymnasium space or basketball courts unless you're talking about, if it's not used for F-P-Y-C or any of the high school activities, it's tough to get those activities scheduled unless you're talking about 10 o'clock at night that's open for people to use. So I throw this out there, like I said, I guess thrown under the bus, I guess thrown under the bus, I'm only trying to come up with a building that eliminates the need to operate two facilities and I think it's a tremendous mistake if we go forward with trying to continue to operate two facilities. We don't have an unlimited pot of money that we can continue to do that because we also have right down the street yet another building that's going to have three or four hundred thousand dollars a year and annual operating costs with no clear way to recover revenue there. So it's an option here we can continue to go forward with with this or somewhere in between. I just throw that out there. I have a question on that point for either Mr. Assistant or Mr. McCarty. Can somebody tell me, unless I miss something here, the fact why are we not going to have operating costs over there if we move the senior center? I mean, we still have the problem. It's not the senior center. We have a lot of other uses in that building going on that this council, far as I know, is going to continue to allow it to be used, that building to be used for. So I'm just trying to, it can staff provide me with what that cost differential will be, getting to Mr. Reeffield's point. I mean, is that the 500,000 or 400,000 he's talking about, or is it really more like 50? And probably a lot more than 50. And we'd reduce all of our staff expenses of the staff that are currently there. You could still do some of the meeting activities that are currently at Green Acres at the new community center. It doesn't preclude moving, you know, Main Street out and that was not an assumption. So Main Street, if they still remain, you'd still have maintenance of that portion of the building. So which is roughly about a third of the building. What we're going to do with the other three of the building, so which is roughly about a third of the building. What are you going to do with the other thing of the building? Can I take the building? Well, you'd still have to, right now you don't have to have to have the cleaning crew on a regular basis for those other rooms if they're not being used. If it's all transferred over to the community center. Well, I'm skeptical of that answer, but I appreciate it. And perhaps, I mean, because we've fallen down this path many times before, and we end up spending the money in usually giving away the property for use for free as we've made the mistake of doing too many times. So. Okay. Other comments, Mr. Rasmussen? Let me ask this question. Under option two A A was the preschool or main street child development? No, no, this is all recreational, cultural arts, senior activities. Right, whatever. Not a mainstream child care. If I can make a suggestion on the design or the concept with the three options initially was to be able to phase it in. Maybe it is we design a 25, maybe you design the 32, but you find something that you're comfortable with. But it allows us time to work the issue of how you do face things and when we do with separation of what services would stay at green acres, what services would stay at community center and how to basically effectively work those dollars and keep them low. But also it allows us to maybe even seek out additional donors for if there is a genesis and that someone wants to put their name to, we can go out and seek that person out and try to get that additional money to add that phase on, whether it's now worked in years from now. Well, and what you're suggesting, and maybe that's what the spirit of the recommendation was, I was addressing more of what we actually build now versus what we designed for, but I thought the interest of the Council was designed in phases and we'll have to decide what that gets defined as a community center for the ages and that we would then look at, okay, we fund Phase 1 versus Phase 2 versus Phase 3 and we start Phase 1 or Phase 1 and Phase 2 and we go out and look for and if another pile of this is how we get in trouble when we look at projects and opportunities in a vacuum. I sat up here and listened to some of my colleagues left here, so about the amount of debt and the amount of money that we spent and all the things that are going. Well, we're going to be looking at us. We're here in a few minutes. It's a huge deficit with a huge amount of debt that we've incorporated and at some point in time somebody needs to step forward and say, whoa, we can only do so much at a certain amount of time and be responsible to this community. I understand our low tax rate and all the things are going less somebody suggesting we don't have that anymore. We're going to be we're looking at a huge shortfall before we even get the first base. That doesn't include the park at the Weight Watchers building and downtown parking that we've all been talking about and spent two hours today getting beat up on the subject and all of those sort of things. And so I applaud the effort of the compromise. I think we, the spirit of this, whatever we end up funding is to design the bigger vision. And that may be Mr. Greenfield, the 25,000 square feet to move that forward, to get out in the community, to get feedback from the appropriate people. And then let the discussions over the next couple of weeks or so sort of help us define on money and do we fund phase one, phase two or phase three, do we go to a bond, do we do whatever else we have to do? And that may have been a spirit of what you were suggesting as well. So I guess the question to try to keep moving that down for it is the direction to the staff and I know Mrs. Winder had suggested it may be bigger, but is the direction to the staff? Can we get a consensus that we want to design an approximately 25,000 square foot building? Give us the options and phases. And what, you know, I mean, obviously the first phase has to be the banquet room in the rehearsal rooms and the things that are all part of the spirit of the agreement and the definition of a community center and then certainly we can have discussions on a phase two whether it's now or later on a gymnasium and locker rooms and some of those sort of things. But can we at least get that direction? I mean, we have to at some point in time give the staff direction to design some size building. At some point. Mr. Mayor. Miss Lyon. Thank you. You know, I do agree with you and I think about planning. You want to really take the systems approach. And when you look at the system, you have to look at the budget. You have to look at the size. You know, you do have to figure out what we're going to use the facility for. And when I looked at how the schools did it, and I do want to talk, comment with Mr. Estmussen said, I think two sessions sessions ago was when they did a site plan to start and they did do some planning ahead. And so I agree with the mayor and the rest of my council is that I do believe we need to go ahead with the site plan. And if we're gonna, I'm sticking with my 20,000 and I'm willing to negotiate to go to 25 in the spirit of compromise. I'm willing to do that. And when we get down to the Norton-Knitten grit, then I know that's going to be my plan for later. Whenever I design something, I always have a plan and I have phases. So Mr. Mayor, I can support a 20,000 square foot. I consider looking at the 25 because I look at this tight plan amount of money. And it's really the difference between 1 million and 1.2 million. If there's a $200,000 difference there, which in the budget cycle right now could be huge. However, because that could be coming out of the monies that were getting from thankfully the Sherwood family, I feel that we could go to that extent. That would really be where I'd like to stop. And as far as considering the community does need to have their input, And as far as considering, you know, the community does need to have their input. You know, I agree with all of those things, but I do believe we need to put some kind of boundaries around really where we're going. So I would consider going through with the site plan, instead of being out of the Sherwood generous contribution, the 1.2 to look at a 25,000 square foot building, but I'm concerned about supporting the complete size of that in the next eight years. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. And I will agree with what Mr. Greenfield has proposed with the 25 and the idea of phasing one, two, and three. But I think if you say like the phase three is the 25,000, I think that would be short-sighted. If we, you know, even if there was a phase four, but the idea that down, you know, it could be added to in the long run, but not to say that the total final project at the end, you know, 10 years, 20 years from now is only 25,000 would be short-sighted. We, you know, look at his plan now, but when you're doing the planning, the idea of that there may be down the road could be, another 10,000 could be put on it. Well, you know, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm just sitting here looking at the plans and the work that's already been done. Really the ultimate is the 32,000 square foot center, which is broken down in a whole bunch of phases. I'm wondering if we couldn't give staff direction to continue to lay out and design the 32,000 square foot building. And then what we take a look at is, I mean, if you look at it, you could build the gym, the gym, not build the gym, the gym, you could build the fitness center, not build the gymnasium. You could build the fitness center not build the fitness center. You could build Even with glass of kitchen. Well, I think we need a kitchen, but there's several different phases that get us down to Cost that we can and then what we're gonna have to focus on as we go throughout the community is what phase gets built now And what shortfall gets funded now either through long-term debt or what it have to be a long-term debt or or somebody shows up with another $5 million and once the gymnasium is somebody said named after them or whatever. I mean, maybe that's the direction as go for, which is actually whatever it is, option. What's a 32,000, 10.7 million dollars, I don't know what it's called. Option three, take that out into the community. And I think we have two obligations. One is we committed to the surrounding residential communities that, soon as we were ready to talk about this, we were going to have an outreach meeting. And I would strongly recommend that we as a council in the next two weeks or so host an outreach meeting. We could do it in the public meeting space at the police station. For some reason we can't do that. We could go across the street to Daniel's run. And secondly, and I think it's already actually been put together. If I heard the testimony, ask that the arts league, I think there was actually a meeting a week or two ago where they've already pulled themselves together. Yes. Use that structure. I don't know if the seniors were included in that, but I certainly think the spirit of what was suggested is that that would group would be at it, have them dialogue, and then maybe have a work session in the next couple of weeks with that group as a whole to get their feedback. And I think what we would be after if I heard this is not so much building something bigger than 32,000 square feet, but what a sensible face construction plan would look like within whatever our current financing is. And if you got a silver bullet, you can have your job for life. If you can go find another $5 million donor Is that on the record? Yeah He didn't say help big to donate Can I have the authority to say that Mr. Susper? If I have a million bucks, I bet we can swing a deal And then we reserve the battleground, which obviously we're going to have to have on how much and what phases we build at the later day. Is that Miss Cross? That's excellent. Consolidation of the thinking here. Yeah, let's do it to staff right now. But I would also ask that we have a group of individuals working with staff, Mr. Hodgkins and Mr. Lahate and our EDA people to look at various funding options and debt and cost and all the things that would go with, I mean, and again, the secret will be, but I think it makes fairly sense if you look at this on what phases could be just and come up with funding on phase one, certainly would be the bank at room in the kitchen and the rehearsal stuff and the community thing in phase II would be the gymnasium and fitness room probably, and those may be as simple as two phases when we decide. And if you do that, Mr. Marraous, as I understood the comments to be that we could do that for basically the Phase I piece for $5.3 million. I mean, that's what it sounded like Mr. McCarty was saying. So therefore, we're facing a $300,000 shortfall, and we could do phase two in the out years. I mean, I just think that is the reason. Is that right? The win solution. I'm sorry. I think it's the first part. I think the spirit, and you're probably right. Instead of kind of clarifying it tonight, I think the spirit of this is if I could because we've got a lot to go on outside this. The spirit is continue are we giving the staff the direction to fund the actual design of the 32,000 square feet? Is that what we're doing? City money. Out of city money, right? Okay. So the the spirit would be the city money meaning not the gift money. Your back pocket. Not the city money meaning not the gift money your back pocket not the gift money and what is the Estimated cost of that design The It's broken out a little bit We just we're gonna have to appropriate those money. That's a great lesson for the council to figure out But that's where we start with. Absolutely. The Kiff money should be only for construction. I mean, again, I'll say it. I hope the Spirit could be. If we paid for the design, if we paid to relocate all of us, and we could fund Phase I within a reasonable price, I mean, holy mackle. Many of us would have thought we would have even had those options six months ago. I think we would have been said not a chance. So let's, let's end that Mr. Sissin with that. We're directing you to move forward on design. Give us Haas. Give us Mr. Hodgkin's Mr. Sissin funding options, we're going to ask that the coalition of the arts community, the park and recreation community, the senior centers and quite frankly, probably even the park or the FPYC group to get together and start having a dialogue. We'll set up a work session so we can do it jointly. That's fantastic. I'll work session. And then I would also ask Mr. Siss and I'll work with you to get a date in the next couple of weeks to have an outreach meeting where in the community either at the Police Department or Daniel's run that we can start to gather. Feedback from the community as a whole consistent with the commitment that we made when we started this. Okay. community as a whole, consistent with the commitment that we made when we started this. Okay? Just because the question had been asked earlier about some kind of referendum this year. And if the question was about doing that in May, we're not going to be able to do this. I mean, I can tell you for a whole bunch of reasons, the biggest mistake we can make is put a referendum in May. That's my personal viewpoint. If we want to move this forward and we want chances of acceptance in the community, that's a way to quick and fairness and it's a different dynamic in a May election versus in November. I mean, anybody who's missed that is not understanding the community. Okay. Now we're going to move down to item number. And, you know, we're gonna get once again in this issue of trying to figure out what we need to do and not do here, but item number 12b, which is a discussion in the Army Navy country. Why we're setting up for that. Let me just see if I can move down to item number C. With the council authorized myself to work with Mr. Sisson as the MBTA rep to negotiate with the MBTA to allow for our, I think it's administrative services support for that staff. And then we also have to work out scheduling in the work session, and I don't know what our policy is on that. But does there anybody object to us pursuing that concept so we can assist and I'll will team up and work on that, we'll get, we'll move item number C's now been done. That MOU will come back to the council. Okay. Mr. Murray, I'm fine with that. I just was, I thought I was told that all they wanted was a meeting room one, one night a month. So that's expanded. Well, unfortunately some got an email. Others did not. I did not. I talked to somebody live. Right. The request is also that we provide administrative services in terms of healthcare and administrative payroll. Right, we're going to staff. The request was to explore how the city could help at no cost to the city, and standing up their organization and advice, showing them how certain things can get done and so forth. Well, that will far beyond advice, it's health insurance, is it not? Well, I don't know how it's going to work and that's why the, we'll come back to the case. Is it not? Well, I don't know how it's going to work and that's why the- Well, we'll come back to the case. Great, okay. All of us great. We'll come back with an MOU and have a dialogue. Mr. Mayor, we could use those revenues for our community center. I didn't hear the revenue part. I think they wanted it at the break even part, but we'll see what happens. Okay, we set up. Let's go through as quickly as we can. Mr. Mayor and the City Council. It's for the Army Navy Country Club with the proposal for forward quests. The first of which is the special use permits to allow expansion of an existing golf course in the R1 and R2 districts. The main parcel here is split R1, R2 zoning. Re-development and fill exceeding 12 inches in height in the floodplain. And special exceptions to allow construction and grading in the RPA, and less than 20% tree canopy in the R2 district and less than 25% tree canopy in the R1 district. The last one there regarding trees was added today, the special substance was added today and that's why you don't see it in your packet that was sent out last week. The subject site for those that are not familiar is located between Pickett Road and kind of south of the Old Lee Highway, south of Old Pickett Road located in proximity of the high school. Running down the center of the site is Daniel's run where it merges with Ackatink. And it was recently reconstructed and re-aligned by the US Department of Fish and Wildlife in cooperation with the federal court. Badly needed as the string beds were eroding along with the banks along the golf course. A valuation criteria for the special use permits and the special exceptions would be 1,10, 3,66 for all special use permits. 1,10, 3,69 for all special use, should be special exceptions. And 1,10, 89 for encouragement into the RPA. for all species, should be special exceptions. And 1-1089 for encouragement into the RPA. The first page you see here is the Northwest Quadrant on the border of only highway across from, from grade oaks in the high school kind of at an angle. And it's typical of the types of improvements. The golf course is hoping to accomplish to modernize the golf course facilities, not structures, but the actual falling field of the golf course. Two blue arrows that you see, the one on the bottom left is pointing to the T-boxes on this particular hole. You see they're kind of being enlarged, moved down a little bit, maybe in a fourth one added here. And the second blue in the king some areas where new bunkers are going to be placed around the golf course. This slide illustrates opposite other northern corner of the property. Blue arrows pointing to the proposed flood plan along the restored Danes run. Danes run this hatched area here. And what you see shaded and gray are two of the proposed areas for fill in the flood plain. This is at the northern end of dangles run, closest to Akiteen Creek. Here you have the western portion of the site. And a couple things I can point out to you here. The blue arrows are indicating the symbol for tree removal. And you do take notice that there's a lot of tree removal around the edge of the property where it butts residential, along with other places on the site here. And the red arrows are indicating some more typical types of reconstructive efforts of the golf course to update the facilities. Bottom here, indicating movement of T-boxes and the road one in the efforts of the golf course to update the facilities. Bottom here, indicating movement of T boxes and the road one in the center there is again for bunkers. Mr. Silverland, are you sharing? Oh, I didn't realize he was literally out of the room. Mr. Rasmus, questions. Thank you. Could you go back to the previous slide and I can't figure out what streets were dealing with your Christine maple more road maple more road coming down Bronx screen this way I have a larger here on a pull out with See this comes in kind of at a dead end here and there's a street I think coming around this way See Up to the north would be I'm sorry. There's not an arrow in here Well, what streets are fronting what lots? These lots that are or trade here what street do they front on? right here. What street do they front on? Don't see it on this illustration. I might be on the first one. Let me take a look here. Let's just off the map. I believe it is St. Andrew. St. Andrews? It kind of comes at an angle down through. Yeah, thank you. It kind of comes at an angle down through. Yeah, thank you. Okay. I'm not, I mean, I've lived here a long time and I don't know, maple more road. No. Anybody know that in the city? I don't think that's in the city. So I'm wondering where the lots are just above Maplemore. It's a to be a problem tonight. Pardon me? It's unbuilt. Pardon me? It's unbuilt. It's unbuilt. It's unbuilt, rolled in the city. What is it intersect with? It's a stale band of stale androos. That's okay. That's an interesting example. It's a stale band of stale androos. Okay. That's an interesting example. Is the stub end of St Andrews? Is it the stub end of St Andrews? I believe it's halfway down where two different questions are subject to. Oh, okay. Okay. I know. I think I know the area. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for staff? I interrupted him in the middle. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. But you were done, see? So, don't go ahead. Good thing I went back here. I was going to point out the areas that are attached here to the tree removal along the residential properties. Golf course is supplement. It's kind of hard to see. I don't know why I didn't pull up here. Along these areas, you'll see some dark lines, and those are re-vegetative screens of evergreen, denser of evergreen to supplement some of the tree removal along where it's being taken out close proximity to the residential lots. This illustrates the major area of the fill on the blood plane that exceeding 12 inches. The blue lines again on both sides are illustrating the limits of the flood plane and the darker gray in the middle, here's Daniel's run again. The darker gray is illustrating the flood plane fill down to the south portion you're seeing some areas around the bunker. Here you've seen elevated tee boxes, the middle you see an elevated tee boxes and general fill for sloping and restabilization of the banks further north. Tree removal specifically in the yellow line illustrates where the property is split between R2 and R1 zoning. The red arrow is pointing out some of the tree removal locations along the site. As you can see, it's pretty sporadic. It's fairly dotted through the site and some specific tree numbers. And R1 is a 25% requirement for tree canopy. And they have 33.4%, 3% currently. R2 is 20% requirement. They have 17.3%. So they're slightly deficient in R2 currently. As an average of the two zoning districts of weighted average, both districts have 24.7% canopy whereas the requirement weighted average would be 22%. So they're slightly over if you look at the site as a whole. And what they're proposing is to maintain a 22% canopy for the entire site, the R1 would be 30.9% or two would go down to 15.9% from 17.3%. Another proposal from the golf courses added over 23 acres of what they're calling no mose zones and to familiarize with no mose on it's going to be native metograzes from one foot to four feet in height. That located right along the RPA in Daniels Run would not be moored. The golf courses were proposed to actually mo the no mobs on. That makes sense. About once a year in the other areas and remove immediate way of clipping so they don't become an issue with phosphorus and other loading into the dingos around the area. And with that, I'll take any questions you might have. Thank you. Questions, now are the questions. What direction are we are we expected? I don't know where the mayor has apologized, but what direction, that time's consistent are you looking for, put this on the- Yes, we'll schedule it for land use hearing. This is just an opportunity for the Council to get an early read on this item and to express the need for additional information gathering. Great. Okay. That's great, Silver. Yes, point. Back to my slide question, you don't have to roll it back there, but as I recall, there was significant tree removal right up against current loss. And I think either the golf course or some or the city needs to notify those people early on that they're going to see chainsaws and they're right out their back window if this gets approved. And so people need to know that early. Good point. Thank you very much. I'm Mary. We're going to put this on a meeting agenda. Regular agenda. Okay. Thank you. This is a question. I'll bring us to item number E, which is discussion of the O9. We're skipping D. We're going to jump down to E, which is a discussion of the O9 budget issues. I'll get to spend with D very quickly. Who? This is Worcester. Mr. Sissam. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The council is not used to really discussing the proposed budget at this point in the fiscal year, but the staff has been underway with that process for several weeks now. And just last Friday, we concluded our meetings with the various department heads. And so we have an understanding of their budget requests and kind of a preliminary read on what the budget will be. The draft budget will be as we move through the next several days. the next several days. We have identified that we're going to be probably in a shortfall position to a greater extent than we typically are. Certainly, if we don't want to alarm anybody, we will work our way through these budget issues as we always do. But I felt it important to bring this to the attention of the Mayor last Friday and he immediately suggested that we get to you with the presentation of some of the issues tonight. So Mr. Hodgkin says pull together a quick and brief handout for you to go through to now look at the proposed budget and it's not even proposed at this stage. This is a very fluid dynamic process that we go through and heading into our presentation to you in March. So we are bringing this information to you much early in the process and hope that you will accept it in that bank. So Mr. Hodgkins, would you explain the handout that you have provided? Thank you, Mr. Sisson. Thank you, Mayor, members of council. We brought this forward to you today to give you an update of our preliminary 08-09 budget and also to bring forth for discussion and consideration items that could affect the 0809 budget. And we listed seven different categories here. And before those categories of items right now that are not included in the budget, but we'll need to be taken into consideration, things, items that may affect the budget and it should be considered along with the budget that we are, the preliminary budget that we are working on. First of all, at this point, as Mr. Assistant said, this is an early stage and it's a very fluid process that we go through. We're looking at a shortfall at this point, assuming no changes in the real estate taxes or any other tax category or fees, about $6 to $9 million. And that is, to a large extent, that is due to an issue that everyone in the North Virginia is dealing with, which is a flat or deteriorating real estate assessments. And to go, what may impact these items, and we want to bring it to the council's attention, a multitude of items that could have an impact positive or negative on the budget. And the first item that we bring up our potential additional cost, just to keep in mind. And again, these are not included in the $69 million potential or estimated deficit at this time. One is our VP Amico property that we're currently using to early as a parking in the old town area. And that could have an impact if we do have the council of sites at some point to convert that into a parking deck, for example. We also have the development expansion of the Kitty Pose to Park, which could be an additional expense. We have the community center, which we had just been, the council has just discussed and the expenses that may come along with that. The blinum we anticipated shortfall in the funding for the the blinum project not spitting it and I wrote the blinum interpretive center but that's just part of the project but there is an anticipated shortfall for that project. It will go out the bit this spring and we'll have a better idea of what that amount may be. And also with our George Mason Boulevard project, we own the Lebanon School, which will be, which will be hopefully sold for redevelopment at some point, but we do have school buses that are currently on that property that we will have to find storage for at some point. And there may be an expense associated with that. We also have potential additional one-time revenues that we may realize. First is, again, the VP Amico station or property that we sell it for redevelopment of the additional revenues or revenues coming back to the city. We also have the old library property as part of our agreement with the developers that is property that can be sold for redevelopment and we could realize revenues from that property. The financing of that property had been paid off some time ago. We also are hoping that there will be savings from the supplemental Fairfax High School of Linear Financing. And again, that's something that should be quantified in the relatively near future. We also have three properties that we own that may be sold, but that would require repayment. There could be a surplus from those, the disposal of those properties or there could be a shortfall. One is again the 11-O's property, we had finance, we purchased set four million dollars and that was financed for four million dollars. We have our George Mason Square properties, which we could retain for a number of uses, parking being one, or that property could be sold to a developer. And also we have what we call the TT Rennels and Circuit Properties that we actually had purchased for $1.3 million and that property, I know, we like to sell and we could make a profit on a new ornod. We also have to take under consideration our NBTA revenues. Currently there's, I've listed three different areas. We also have to take under consideration our NVTA revenues. Currently there's I've listed three different areas. One is what we call the 60% return, which we had submitted three projects to the NVTA to be considered for those revenues. So one being the preliminary design or part of that with a Fairfax bowl of art along with construction and related to that project. Then we have our 40% revenues that will come back to the city that we do have more flexibility in the use of those funds. And of course with the commercial real estate tax option, which the city has the option of implementing a up to a 25 cent tax on our commercial properties for transportation use. And in that vein, we also have our service district taxes right now that we do impose right now in the old town areas. pays an additional supplemental tax of 12.5 cents and we'll call the business improvement district at 6%. The next item is our real estate tax rate adjustment. Of course, that's an area that we have not adjusted in our preliminary budget at this time, but that's something that we will want to take into consideration. We anticipate with where we are when the preliminary budget that we will become a counsel with the substantial, recommended substantial increase to the real estate tax rate. But I do want to mention because of the reduced assessments that we've experienced that the equalization rate for the residential properties would be a 5 cent increase to the tax rate, meaning homeowners in the city, if we raise on the average, if we raise their taxes by 5 cents, they would receive the same tax bill as they did the year before. And of course that means on the flip side of that, the businesses which have experienced an increase in their assessments would actually pay higher real estate taxes at the 5% rate. And the final item are adjustments to the preliminary budget, which of course we will continue to go through and massage this budget and work on the budget to actually bring down this deficit. And there's many items that we go through and reviewing the request for the final part. And with that, I'd like to turn over to Council for any discussion or questions. Any questions, Ms. Any questions? I'm just lying. I just need a couple of clarification. I appreciate all the things we're talking about. But I think some numbers to kind of attach to some of those. And let's just go to, I love to look at the revenues first. I don't remember completely, you know, like the total, I guess I just want the total amount of money approximately for the two additional one-time revenues, the sale of the Amaco-Selvo Library and the savings from the high school and your financing. Do you have kind of a bulk number for me on that? Well, that's why I left the numbers off. I know, yeah, I knew it. We don't have final numbers on this, but I can't tell you. How to give me a rough estimate. I need to know what I'm planning with you. Well, we did purchase the BPMico Station for $850,000, which would have been more of a value. Back then, we purchased that. That's right. So it The total amount of this is probably about 2.73 million. Well, the library property was originally in the agreement with a developer to be sold for $2.7 million. But that's, and again, none of these items are finalized. And the savings from the Fairfax High School and near Fine Hensing, we have not received the final number on that as of yet. Okay, so you don't have any idea about that? Okay. No, okay. I would hate to say that. Okay. And then I guess like the NVTA revenue cost, I guess I want to go back in the budget. I thought at some point we had had monies set aside for some of the things that we would be doing. But now we've found these other monies with 60 percent and 40 percent. You have absolutely made sure that we've equaled that out, so that still include, we're still about $6, $9 million. No, no, no, no, no, no, that's not included. Okay, that's, that, this is not included. That's great. Everything we have listed on this page is not included in the $6.99 million short call. Including an anticipated increase in the tax rate. That is correct. Why see? Yet these are decided other items to be considered in addition to our starting point if you would. But Mr. Hutchins, is it safe to say, and if I misunderstood you earlier tonight, let me know, but you've already kind of crashed and burned on the Capitol improvement. That's always been one of the areas the City Council has dabbled in and has given us some opportunities to cut shortfalls, but it's my understanding. You've already sort of taken a bare bones approach to that in the $69 million. We have, it's not completely bare bones at this point. If you would, we actually took the low hanging fruit, items that we felt very comfortable that could be deferred into the future. So there's still, I would, I feel comfortable in saying there's still other items that are up for consideration. consideration. Mr. Restwoods, I was going to pursue that point, Mr. Mayor, was that perhaps even before the budget process, and before you present the budget to us, but might be helpful for us to start to look at, was a list of CIP items that haven't been bid out yet, or that could be postponed. Not the really small ones, but if there are any major ones that we could start thinking about what the impact that is Both on the budget, which would be good, but the negative, hey, we said we were going to do this and now we say we may have the weight of you or two But it would be nice to get that now as we start to at least for me as we start to think about this Yes, we're actually going through those projects right now perfect Yes, we're actually going through those projects right now. Perfect. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sir, I'm sorry I stepped out of the room for a moment. But can you share with or did you share with the council? Other revenue streams, not just real estate. I know you said real estate is a primary driver of this, but we're sales taxes looking at this point and people and the whole set of others. Did you talk about that? No, I have it. But can you give just high level what you think it's heading? Because the bigger worry I have is actually this could be small, depending on whether or not we're actually going to recession. And in a week, it's a matter of a week's time we've gone from probably not the economy's good to suddenly now say, now how big it's a recession in a big? That's what almost everybody is talking about, especially with the Fed's rate cut of three quarters of a point. So I guess I'm wondering if we're not being conservative enough in our planning here, and it actually may be far worse than we've anticipated. I don't know the answer. That's a very good question and quite honestly we don't know the answer to that either. We have not, we did take a conservative approach with the East Preliminary Numbers sales tax for example has been flat over the last year, which is something that has covered us. And a few other revenues have been also. We will be meeting and we continually meet with the commissioner of the revenue to go over these numbers and get updates. We'll be meeting with him again in another week or two with the updates for many of the major tax indexes. I don't mind flat. I'm worried about declining revenues, which I think is more probable. And then the other thing I just have to comment on is, you know, all of these, and getting to your point, Mr. Mayor, about the, about the Capital Improvement Program, all of these sort of one-time hits or one-time wonders that you can actually get revenues from, you know, that doesn't help us on the operating side except one year. So, that's a real problem. And look at that as a quick fix solution but not a long-term solution. And I mean, you know, this may be very well whispering to the mayor we were talking about this earlier. This may be probably the worst budget we've seen in a couple of decades. And I'm not sure the council's fully grasped that issue yet. On the other hand, it provides us a little flexibility and a lot more discipline, which is not necessarily a bad thing either. So when we're talking about 32,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet, we may not have a choice. So. But anyway, okay We may not have a choice. Right. So, but anyway, okay, that was just a commentary. I yield, Mr. Mayor. Okay, any other fee, but this is obviously just an FYI so that we as we move down this path, we understand the breadth of what the challenge will be. And you said two decades, I bet it's, I've been around kicking around since the late 70s and I don't remember a lot of things like this. It's some period maybe ever, but. And I think keeping in perspective, I don't think we're unique. I think every jurisdiction is going through the same dialogue and every jurisdiction is going to have to discuss, you know, tax rate increase and cut new, you ready to think about the school system in the county and not only do they have a deficit next year, they have a huge deficit this year, they're trying to figure out. So it's bad, but we have a lot of company in this boat. But let me remind, if I may, the council in particular with some of our own policies, which I think are good policies, but about residential rejuvenation as we like to talk about and so forth, we're getting a lot more kids in the school system, which is a good thing. But everyone of those kids costs a lot of money. So from a planning perspective, and I haven't seen any numbers yet from the school board on that, but all of this is stuff that, gosh, I mean, we've spent millions and millions more on schools. Just on enrollment has nothing to do whatsoever with construction. So, you know, those are in the last couple of years. So, you know, throughout the early 90s, we saw a deployment enrollment. And suddenly now, in the last decade, we've seen a sharp upturn, which is a good thing, but it's also a cost of. Well, it's a point well taken, and it's not going to get better. When I grew up in the city of Fairfax, we had about 30% of that. The homes had kids in the school system that dropped all the way down to 8% in the 90s and 2000s and it's certainly going up, but I don't even want to tell you what the dollar amount is attached to it. We got even close Even if it split the difference between where we are and where it was at One point in time in the community and as we get younger and that's exactly what's happening. That number is a number that we won't be able to control. Right, and it's a good thing, like I said, but it's something that we just need to take under advisement as we think about ways to develop type in here. Okay, and Ms. Cross. I just had two quick questions on potential additional costs. A provision for storage of the bus school buses. Is that, is it your thought that we're possibly going to have for just property or anything like that or lease property to accommodate the buses? It could be all of the above. We are taking opening bids for the 11 Oats property this Thursday and the second round. And in that we have encouraged the submitters if you would to help the city has to literally go out and find space for 50 buses 50 bus 50 so it may be purchased it may be The shortfall at lemon on the interpretive center Is that so terribly significant or is it in why? Well, I think we're going to have a better idea when they actually put the bid out and received its back. Relatively speaking, I don't think it would be a short form that's going to be considered significant. Well, Mr. Hodgkin, just point of clarification, you keep saying interpretive center. You mean, I lend them property. And I think that's where there's a little, it's talking about the old historic house and the restoration of the house and the property. It's not a shortfall in the current construction project of Blinum Interpretive Center. That is correct. It's the overall project. The renovations to the. The renovations to the. The interpretive center, the renovations, grounds, is on. We borrowed money for all of it. And the bids for the interpretive center are. We're at a high and we're concerned that we may not have enough left in that original borrowing to the older plenum property. And again, we don't think it's going to be terribly significant, but the range I've heard is maybe 150 to 350. Perhaps I have to trim some of that back if it comes in. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Griefho. Can you provide us a memo that details where the council was originally in terms of what we authorized for the interpretive center, what we authorized for the entire grounds and where we're at, where they cost for the interpretive center, where we're at, with I know there's a keep of Grampus Cottage, there's the landscaping plan for the entire property, there's the continued renovations that I don't think we finished yet with the original house. I think that would be, you're kind of pulling some numbers out of context and quite frankly, it's been a while since we looked at it. I think it would be useful if you can get that to us. I think it would be useful if you can get that to us. Okay, if we can, let me re-convein the regular meeting of the City Council and I'd like to move our redevotion to move into executive session. We're not going to deal with that tonight. I move the City Council convene and close meeting of Section 2.2, 3711A1, the Code of Virginia Discuss, appointments to boards and commissions, section 2.2, 3711A3, the Code of Virginia Discuss, acquisition and deposition, discernment of property for public purposes. Section 2.2, 3711A, 7 of the Code of Virginia for consultation with legal counsel for legal advice. All council members in favor of the motion, please signify by voting aye. Opposed and a pass unanimously in the council would end to a close meeting at 10.30 p.m. 12.14 pm the city council included, is closed meeting and discuss appointments to boards and commission, discuss acquisition and deposition or certain real property for public purposes and for consultation with the legal counsel for legal vise. I move that each of us certified to the best of each council members' knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements and the Virginia of Freedom of Reformation Act, and only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements and the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. And only public business matters identified in the motion, the community and the closing meeting were heard discussed or considered. All council members in favor of the certification motion, please signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it passed unanimously. We are now to appointments to boards and commission. The commission of the arts, Mr. Rasmussen. Mr. Mayor, I move the approval of Howard Ryle for a three-year term extending through December 31, 2009. Second. Moved by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Seventhearn, all in favor signify by voting aye. Opposed, the passion animously. Human Services Committee, Mr. Cross. unanimously. Human Services Committee, Ms. Cross. Mayor. I nominate Martha Armstrong for a three-year term on the Human Services Committee, long-term care committee. Second. Moved by Ms. Cross, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? The passed unanimously. Economic Development Authority, Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the appointment of Dan Drummond to a one year vacancy for the remainder of a four year term extending through October 14, 2011. Second. Move by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen. All in favor, the motion is signified by voting aye. Aye. Opposed. The passion and it was the appointments to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Winter. I move the approval of Ross Landis to one term for the remainder of four-year term that extends to December 31st, 2008. Mark Triniske to one, to the four-year term that has extended through December 31st, 2009, and Al Bonacelli for the four-year term extended through December 31, 2011. Second. Move by Mr. Winter, seconded by Mr. Restmus and all in favor of the motion. Signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and the passing annulities. We're now comments by the City Council, Mr. Winter. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to remind everyone that the library will be having its ribbon cutting this Saturday at 10 a.m. and all are invited. And I would like to congratulate staff, especially Daniel Easter for the article on, it was in the post last Saturday, January 12th regarding the Fairfax Renaissance Housing Corporation and the city in highlighting the redo of houses in the city. And then also to thank Tom Jackman for the very nice article that he had in Fairfax extra this week regarding the Community Center gift. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Lime? No comments, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sairoff, no comments. Mr. Assamasa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Perryman from the Westmore Civic Association, and I, one of the things he mentioned in his list of items was if the Westmore School lease expires with who's in there now, that they could support the construction of ball fields on that site. If you combine that with Mr. Hodgkin's rather pessimistic budget proposal tonight, would my colleagues consider taking another look at the funding for the Stafford Ball Fields, which were very expensive and seeing whether we could do more ball fields on the Westmore site for the same or less money? We would take staff having to look at that fairly quickly before we get too far down the road on the Stafford Project. Could I say if we could get at least a consensus of just, could you all just sort of give us a report of where we are at Stafford Property, what cost has been expenditures, what cost are still left in front of us, and then I think that would be starting point in terms of even seeing if it's feasible. Any? For a vote? Push your vote, Mr. Stone. Part of the cost analysis would be the loss of rental income from Westmore school and that. Right. But if I read your statement, you're not yet in the outskirts. Right. That plus we're not getting cost is to develop all fields at Westmore. Oh, yes. Right. But can you just give us a review of the issue? Okay. Anything else, Mr. Rasmus? Almost Mr. Greenfield? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm not quite sure the best way to approach this, but I think we need to have a dialogue about the amount of police presence. I think, you know, at one point we were seeing police presence in the downtown dealing with some of the problem bars. We get complaints about the vandalism that's occurring in the parking garage. I know I heard from a couple of business owners this evening about concern. The damage is being done to their buildings after hours and windows being broken, doors being fried open. That's occurring for some reason. broken doors being fried open, that's occurring for some reason. And I don't know if we need to have a work session with the police chief, but I think that we need to get a handle on, I remember a time when Dharma Coffee House was in the downtown, and we had a great problem with graffiti, and that vandalism going on. And we put up cameras on the tops of light poles, on the tops of telephone poles, doing surveillance to actually get a handle and catch these people and it worked. And it sent a strong message in the community and it wasn't long and that place was gone and a lot of the problems were resolved. It seems like we're up and down with the presence down there. We don't have the bicycle officers, I didn't realize it's cold right now, but I think we do have some issues we need to stay on top of and I don't know that we are, but I also don't know that we aren't because I quite frankly haven't seen anything from our police department on a while. So, Mr. Mayor, I'm not quite sure how best to proceed, but I think we do need to respond. We were many of us were there and heard the concerns from property owners tonight. And I think we need to try to do something to be responsive to that concern. Well. Fred, can we just get a report? I know when it was brought up the issue in the parking garage by a citizen. I know chief rapper pour sent a email of solutions, but I think Mr. Greenfield's point is well taken. I know it came up on the meetings after it and it came up last week when the meeting was some of the landowners. And I think it's an issue and it's appropriate now because we're getting ready to go in a budget discussion, whether it's tough year or not tough year. We're going to have to set some priorities and I certainly would think the safety of our community and the vitality of downtown after all the money and infrastructure has been invested would be a high priority. So if you could just sort of get back to us on that sort of a state of where we are and so you will be hearing from the chief during the budget presentations because there are proposals to. Right, but I don't think in this we want to wait until that. I agree. Just green fill any other? That's it for this cost. Just expanding on that. We also heard tonight at the meeting with business owners, Dental, that there is once again problems with the the trash and sidewalks and we just need to keep it cleaned up. This is our downtown area and we need to put our best foot forward at all times. And so let's get out the sprooms and power washers and keep its brushtup. And Mrs. Cross, if I could just, certainly we need to do that. And on the public spaces, the problem I'm seeing in downtown is the trash that gets allowed to sit on private properties that then gets blown on public properties and other private properties. And it is a huge problem. I don't know where it's all coming from, but I can take you at the cue bus stop in front of the moorhouse right now and the stack of trash that's sitting there is enormous. Now, I go out and clean it up. It's not my responsibility or is it anybody else's? And I don't know the answer to that portion of it. Part of it is there is a responsibility, the land owners that have clientele and businesses that have customers that just flat out. Letter and then it impacts the whole downtown. I think it's our responsibility certainly play a role in it, but at my viewpoint it shouldn't be our sole responsibility to do that either. I don't know the answer to that more complicated process, but certainly sidewalks in the street and the sand and all those things should be a public responsibility. I don't know if more trash cans, I don't know what the solution is, but it does become a problem. And I will tell you, part of the problem is everywhere there's a cue bus stop, I can promise you there's a huge pile of stuff. And I can take you out right now, I'd be willing to bet you in a demonstration. And that is a public responsibility. When people are sitting there waiting for the bus, they're dropping their food and their stuff and their cobes and their bottles and it happens a lot. What's that? Okay. All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion for Germany. All Mr. Motion may I miss over 30 seconds by Miss Winter. All in favor of a vote aye. Motion-made by Mr. Silverthorn second by Mr. Winter. All in favor, signify by voting aye. Opposed, the pass unanimously. Thank you.