Music I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. Here we go. Good evening and welcome to the City of Fairfax Planning Commission meeting. Monday, September 24th, 2007. Please join me in rise for the Pledge of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. As everyone take a look at the agenda. Move for acceptance. All right, is that by consensus? Yes, great. Are there any presentations by the public this evening? Seeing none, we'll move on then to item number three. Consideration of operating procedures for public outreach. This kind of lesson I'd like to thank you. These are presented in a very formal and I have to say quite beautiful way. I guess we have desktop publishing in action here. So thank you to say quite beautiful way. I guess we have best-top publishing in action here. So thank you to the staff for that. I presume that this is just memorializing some of our earlier discussions as far as the edits to the document. So I just think it's much easier to have to provide these type of materials for the whole material, some appendices, and just puts it in a little bit more formal format. Terrific, terrific. And I'd like to turn to my colleagues for any discussion of the document. I think it looks great. Yeah, I was just going to say I had not seen this in the most recent format. And I think whoever worked on this did a great job. It really incorporates all our initial thoughts and it's very professional looking. And I think we're on this did a great job. It really incorporates all our initial thoughts and it's very professional looking. And I concur with the entire document. Wonderful. Mr. Foster, we'll fork work our way. I think it looks great. Unfortunately, we're back. In my mind, at the same point, we've been all along. And we've added some. If you go to page four, there's a lot of new items on there that we did not have before. I'm not sure I find value in the appendices that relate to Pinellas County. We've talked about this issue for some period of time. It is my recollection that we agreed in June that we would take these as guidelines without a formal action of the planning commission. And I'm still at the same position that I had in June when we discussed it for the fourth time. Okay, Dr. Kahn. I frankly, I think it's, again, she did a job, she added some, what do you call it, a value-added information and made the document much more convincing for me. And what I think my fellow commissioner is saying on page 4, in my view, I thought there was an excellent illustration of some of other options we have. So where I have gone through this so many times, I think it's very good up in it. I mean, I'm going to follow it to the seat. Thank you. Mr. Kullian. I think it's on the phone that we're going to talk to you for a very simple. But I tend to agree with Mr. Foster in that the one question I have is, where is the Planning Commission in here? This is an excellent public outreach document, but I failed to find any place in here where it directs the planning commission to take action, or it would lead the planning commission to take an action to direct staff to do additional work or other things as it affects any of the proceedings or the things that we do. And as such, then, I don't find that it would be a useful document to be a planning commission document if it doesn't deal with our deliberations and deliberative process. I think it's an excellent document that we could follow that, you know, in terms of looking at who and what everybody else is doing. But I think that's the core of the discussion that we've had all along. We can direct staff to do more work. We can ask City Council to do more things. What action is there in here that relates to the planning commission and how we operate, which is what I would think this kind of planning commission outreach document should speak to. So that's my question. No, it's still. And it's interesting because it speaks to supplemental outreach measures in the document. And the question becomes to us, and I think it's a fair question, when will we be using this? So I think in our last meeting we were talking about having it as a resource that we could opt into, so to speak, for particular projects or proposals or initiatives. I'd like to just turn to my right on the podium and ask what Simmons was properly, how they respond, just because I think this is an important issue. And maybe what we could do is look at the motion and play with the language and that and apply some language on how we hope to use it, just a thought. But let me turn to my right first. Yeah, I guess I look back to our original intent. We were looking for guidelines. And I guess what I like about it is it states out, you know, what is the minimum state requirement? What are we required to do? And then we wanted to come up with a way of listing other things that we could do based on the size of the project, the scope of the project. I think if we make it too restrictive, or we're painting ourselves in a box, that for every issue, do we have to refer to this and decide, well, gee, we need to do these things because this type of an outreach. I kind of like it because it's guidelines, but it's not very restrictive. It just gives us some things that we could do and we could discuss based on the size and scope of the project, the type about reach that we must do. And it's clear to me what we have to do and then gives us like a long list of things that we can do as a commission and we can judge that project by project. I'm glad I've had it. Okay. Ms. Poper. Well, when I first brought forward this idea, I forget how many years ago it was. The intent was to really begin a dialogue and then put in place some policies and procedures that would help us when we are facing particular situations, whether it's land use or whatever, as a way to garner input on those. I've given the examples before of the child care regulation, which I think we did, staff did a great job on, but had we had something like this, it might have jogged our memory early on, and I think this is the language that is used in here to think about soliciting more input prior to actually doing a lot of work on it. If you look at page three, I think it outlines kind of what I had in mind at the top of the page. It says in its deliberations the Planning Commission embraces the concept of public participation spectrum and dealing and determining the appropriate approach to public In its deliberations, the Planning Commission embraces the concept of public participation spectrum and dealing in determining the appropriate approach to public participation by particular projects or programs and has established this public participation and outreach policy to find its procedures. So I'm in agreement with Ms. Simmons here that what I heard feedback from our previous discussions where I think I was wanting to go much more prescriptively. We will do this in this kind of situation. I felt this was sort of a nice compromise kind of meets some of the intent I originally had in my mind provides it's like a resource document, particularly as you have new planning commissioners come on to know what the situation is. What could we ask maybe I could envision using this, for example, when we're hearing something and we're getting ready to do it, all of us referring to it, pulling it out and going, all right, so now for this one, what do we think we want to do? Do we want to mail to the Pacific associations? Do we want to do a survey? What would be the best way to approach it? So sort of jog our memories. That's very well said. And I'm looking at appendix B, the public participation spectrum graph or document, which is included here, which was developed by the International Association of Public for Public Participation. And it's just a wonderful work plan on how to approach our goals for public participation and some techniques. Dr. Khan, you wanted to make a comment. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I want to say is that two years ago, I really opposed this because it was too restrictive. And I thought it's really too prescriptive and it's non-relevant to us. It will bind us. But this document not only really is more general guideline, but it also gives absolutely classification of various projects. It is, you know, the size of the parcel, numbers of home is what it gives you specifically specific examples that if this situation comes what we could do. So I frankly, I like the document because it's very well written, very clear. And again my initial reaction really was that we should have minimum requirements, there's no need beyond that. But then looking at the history of this city, this is my fifth year of planning mission, desire always is to go to public, ask for this important. And public also responds to that when we encourage them to come. So this for me, again,, again, is individual choice of each commissioner. For me, it's a very good document that we can work with. It's not prescriptive. It gives you the option to act upon depending on the situation. I would just stop. The one thing I do want to say is I do think I can occur with Mr. Foster about the Penelice County government document. I do want to say as I do think I can occur with Mr. Foster about the Penelice County government document. I do appreciate the staff presenting it as a model or a best practice for discussion in our consideration. But I think it's creating an unrealistic expectation because we haven't discussed if we would like to even try to do something as quite sophisticated as this to try to convene very detailed workshops. And so it would be my suggestion, and again, I'm open to discussion on this, too, not include the document as a component of our outreach plan, but to have it in the files of resource something we can come back to if we see fit. And how does everyone else feel about that? That would be all right. That's the only question. Yes, Mr. Kniech. One of the questions I still have with who and how we're going to adopt it. The memorandum that I have on the package and I says public outread and then uses the word procedures. The copy that I have that shows the governing documents says public participation and outreach policy. Those are two words that I think carry a connotation for me and all of the discussion I've just heard especially from Dr. Khan is talking about a guideline or something that gives you a laundry list but is not prescriptive. It is something that merely enables you to deal with something in additional ways. And policy and procedure to me are much more prescriptive words in the content of the documents. So if this were a guideline or something else, just saying that this is a resource document that we can refer to, then I think you're much closer to what we have been talking about. Yes, sir. I'd like to reiterate that I think we have already approved these as guidelines. We did that in June and I don't see the need for a formal motion to establish a policy. If we wish to opt in as chairman indicates, we don't have the option anymore once we have a formal motion to adopt this formal approach. We're required to do it because we've had a policy decision with the motion of this commission. I've tried to recollect how we acted and I thought that we were we had submitted for staff review rat am I mistaken on that? Do I'm not sure you were there? Oh, that's very possible. That's right. I may have been in business. We moved it back two weeks from we discussed it the first time in early May. We moved it back two weeks because it was to be scheduled for late May and Mrs. Pumphrey couldn't make it. So we did it in early June. And we all, I think it was pretty much unanimous that we'd like the intent. We like the approach. I think all of us feel like there is a need for a higher level of outreach than we see with the minimum requirements under the Code of Virginia, but we did not feel at that time that it was necessary to have a formal motion to adopt what has been described as policy or and or procedures. Right. Let me just follow up because subsequent to this could less is arrival. I believe she edited or augmented augmented is the right word of the document with additional items. So I think for us to act on the document with the new items would be appropriate and therefore they would be a company or bylaws as one of the resources available to all commissioners in the future. So if that's what we're doing, I have seen no problem enacting them. Yes. If I can just make a suggestion maybe to get at the issue as I'm hearing it. Okay. It may be that instead of calling it a public participation and outreach policy, we could call it a public participation and outreach toolkit. And then emotion could be that the Planning Commission published the toolkit with modifications to remove the references to policy procedures and just have it as a toolkit that's available for public outreach sessions. And that certainly gets at some of the questions that we're being asked. I think we can play with the semantics if that is our desire, but the bottom line is that our good intentions don't turn into execution, and the whole burden of this falls on staff. Well, I'm not sure that's completely true. I think it depends on how active a role the commissioners want to take on a particular issue. But as Mr. Cunningham pointed out, we haven't defined what the planning commission's role is Well, I I think we're going in circles now to the art we have been for a long time long before I get on this Yes, I just want to make one comment. I Serve as staff support to our board as well So I know that dual role of sitting, we're so sitting and being asked to do things. I gotta be really plain and blunt. I think that it is the responsibility of staff to provide the guidance and support we need to do our jobs. We are not professionals, we're not professional staff in this case. We're here to make decisions and help support policies and whatnot in the city of Fairfax. But the staff are really the experts on these things. Now, that doesn't mean that I think our planning commissioners shouldn't participate in outreach efforts or make recommendations or even facilitate, I mean, make a survey up or do something like that. But I think this is appropriately placed. I'm willing to make a motion that includes words like toolkit and as modified. Sorry. I didn't mean that. It's fine. Mr. Chairman, I think I need to be first Turkey is fine, but I was thinking here, Commissioner Cunningham, guidelines maybe, a little bit gives us more kind of flexibility again, me playing cement. Yeah, I, I happen to like the word guidelines myself, but why did you introduce the motion? This way we'll have something back on. All right, let me. I'm sorry. She wanted to introduce me. I think she's writing. I was trying to modify as we were speaking so we might have some success weeks. Thank you. I move that the Planning Commission adopt the public participation and outreach guidelines as modified at its September 24th meeting and as modified at the September 24th meeting period. I'm further moved that the Chairman sign a draft letter and send it to the mayor and City Council documenting the Commission's commitment to these guidelines and suggestion that they would be useful for perhaps they would be useful for other board's committees, commissions and the City Council. Okay, is there a second? I think. Thank you. All right, so now we can City Council. Okay. Is there a second? I think so. Thank you. All right. So now we can have some discussion. Any other thoughts about this? One of the thoughts that I still have is how will the document be used? Is there an intention now to bring this up and review it with each issue that comes before it, before us, to see where we fall in terms of additional outreach. So that this will be used each time and it will become a permanent discussion item that staff can bring up in the agenda and remind us on. Right. Yeah, I think that the Chairman and Vice Chair, all the members of the Commission, plus staff will have an action item to compare as items come up for action, what steps on outreach we would like to take. And it's in some cases that may be de minimis under the law. In other cases, if it's a very significant issue facing our city, we want to do the maximum we possibly can. And I think that would be a very healthy discussion for us as we have issues identified. And I think it would be very healthy for other city planning boards, commissions, advisory boards and the city council to consider a similar approach. Please. One possibility might be to rather than saying it's each and every action item we have, the question to me is really whether there are additional outreach efforts we think need to be done based on a particular action or project that's before us. So it may be that some things, you know, I think some things are just really very straightforward and we may not need that additional. I don't want to put us in a situation where my intent was not to have to get into excruciating detail about it, but more to identify as we look at projects and issues. What else do we think needs to be done here? If that's possible. The question is, what do you have? Then is a judgment one, and this gets back to, as you call, dual heading and staff. And you said, we're not the experts. And yet, staff is not the expert on that, because they're giving us their best professional judgment from the start, or at least that's always been my assumption. And the reason that we're here as a commission is to add value with the experience and professional experience that we bring to this sort of environment. So that we can ask those questions. And that's been our role all along is to ask the value added question. Should we be doing more than staff is recommending? Should we be going outside it? So our role as commissioners from my view, I guess, has always been to do that. And this is merely a tool that's being added to the kit, if you will, as Mrs. Goddell-Essa said, that gives us a reference document in our discussion of what tools are possibly available. And if we're only going to bring it up on occasion, then we again are back into the realm of judgment. And the question is, where does the tool fit? And how should we use it, which will be a growing pain, if you will, once we have it to use, or if we don't, we're back to referring to this same kind of process, which is what we'd used in the past. Well, I see it as a checks and balances, and in the sense that I can think of too many situations where I wish we had either at our level or a staff level, more outreach on a, or more information on a particular issue. I'm trying to, I don't think we can mandate a particular thing. We can only make our best efforts. Please. The one comment I would have at this point is that one of the items that's on our agenda for later this evening is discussed an upcoming major outreach issue that comes up on our agenda every five years, as you note it. And I will note that in the last two years or so, staff has been very kind to us by extracting from that given document the appropriate parts to give to us so we can refresh our memory on our primary document as we dealt with various issues. And I'm talking about the comprehensive plan. As we get removed from it, I think we get removed from reading it and remembering what's in it periodically, so the refresher helps over time. And this is the same kind of document over time, I think, that is going to come up periodically, but it's incumbent on all of us to stay current on the comprehensive plan, it's incumbent on all of us to stay current on the need for outreach. So that's just part of the basic doing the job and that begs the question in the prescriptive area, which is where I asked it, on how we should use it, because that is, I think, where the value really is added. Our ability to use it as a useful tool. I think that's a very good discussion point, and why don't we hold that thought for when we reach that agenda item on particular suggestions that you may have for our reach relative to that process? Dr. Comdwell, sir. I think the only thing I would add is that in the past, and to will happen in future too, when staff makes a recommendation, they always make an effort that this is a guideline, that this is the, you know, it's going to rule, that this is the code of Virginia. Now here, this document tells them, okay, they would come, and I agree with Mrs. Amprey, that staff is there to help us to be honest. And they do all the background research. So they were able to say they tied the project with the guideline that we have. And because we have gone through so many times, I'll remember it even if I don't read it five years from now. Because I have read so many times. And all the things are there. There are some new things that I was not familiar, but that makes this document more useful, not less. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Foster, any final thoughts? No, I am still, you know, I think this commission has been very consistent, unanimously consistent, that we need to do more average. My issue is still whether or not it needs to be a formal motion of the planning commission. And I don't feel that it needs to be. I mean, we... Okay. Fair enough. Would someone like to call the question? Do you want to say something else? No comments. Would you like to say anything? Call the question. All right. All those in favor of the motion as presented? Please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Okay. Passes. Okay. Vote a four to two. Okay. Let's move to the next item on the agenda, which is a consideration of the ethics resolution and request to City Council. Just a quick request of the staff. Has there been any follow-up from the City Council with regard to our letter to them, or with regard to consideration of the ethics suggestion that we ask them to look at. The cabinet has not. There has not been. Okay. This is another item, which has been on our agenda for I guess Mr. Cunningham, was it about a year and a half, two years now as well? And it is an issue which we, in theory, as a commission, not universally or unanimously, but I think by majority, I would say there was some consensus that we may benefit from having an ethics cannon for how we act in our role working both with city residents, other boards, developers and others who come before us. We did send a letter which is included as well as the minutes which are included by staff to City Council inviting their feedback. I did have an informal conversation with Mayor and I suggested that we have a work session item jointly with City Council on this and that has not been scheduled as of this time. And so I feel it would be appropriate for us to act on this and include it as a resource for the commission with our bylaws. And I'd like to invite you to address that issue, discuss it. And if there is consensus, we can move on this item for our own use. Is there any discussion? We'll go right to left. Please. Again, I go back to the original intent of this document a few years ago. It was a lot of confusion. Should we meet developers? Should we not meet with developers? Should we be Saturday morning meetings? So, you know, I think that it serves its intent. There's a lot of words in there and, you know, it's, I guess overall, I think that it is a good document. I guess one comment that I had, we changed it now from suggesting that all boards in commission and council adopted to this is restrictions that we're imposing on ourselves as the planning commission correct. Cadence for ourselves, that's correct. So I think that's good. I would like though, I think that it would be good to keep it that it's just something we impose on ourselves. And I think implying that the Council and other boards and commission adopted is may not be necessary. Right. And there is a, I'll describe as a red line of copy applying only to the Planning Commission in the second half of the documents. And that's the one I'm suggesting that we would act on today or tonight. So, okay, so we've just applied to the Planning Commission. That's correct. And not be suggested that it would be useful for other boards. And we've sent our letter to the City Council suggesting that may be appropriate. If at such time they decide that is appropriate and there are changes we can update our own policy. But for the time being, I think it's only appropriate for us to act for ourselves and not suggest that we have any authority over anyone else. Okay. I'm sorry. Is the letter okay? It's not numbered the pages, unfortunately. It's up. So towards the middle of the document after the city council document. PCO seven. PCO seven. And there's a member statement even before that page. Mr. Cullium. Mr. Chairman, I have a certain as you indicate we sent a formal letter to the City Council. You've met from the City Council. We have not heard formally back from the City Council. I think my preference at this time would be to make a motion to send a follow-up letter to the City Council asking them for a formal response to our able 20 of 2000 and 7 letter and attempt to get a response from them before we take the following step because I think we are owed a response to that letter before we elect to take a different course and act on our own while still expecting them to act on behalf of the entire city. So I would, you know, if it's an order, I would like to make a motion to that effect that we send a follow-up letter requesting the response. And... A lot of me to ask a question if it would be a friendly amendment to that motion to invite, ask the response, but I'm, I'm hesitant to support the motion if in fact we are not acting on an ethics guideline for ourselves. Please. It would seem to me that you're starting to walk into a box here, that we have a proposed ethics statement before the council. They have not responded to. We have a motion to request that council respond one way or the other. And then we have an amendment to that motion to adopt the redlined addition, which is specific to the Planning Commission only, while we have a resolution to council that is generic in nature to all boards and commissions within the city and it seems like you're starting to create a parallel track here of different language. Let's assume for a second that council decides to adopt or pursue the original resolution. Well then you've got all that language out there and we've gone off in a different direction. It would seem to me that we need to wait to find out what councils intentions are before we craft a second set of language to address the same issue. I don't want to get the cart before the horse here and it seems like we've got to get on the same page and at least know what Council's intentions are and I don't get any Feeling that you or staff know I certainly don't know because they haven't responded formally I guess maybe some of us had some informal response But we don't know what council's position is and I don't know that we should be Adapting resolutions for the joy of adapting resolutions until we get some some guidance Well, I think it's within our authority to adopt an ethics can an independent as a commission But that's what I understood your point and it's a good point because we may have to go back if That's what I understood your point, and it's a good point because we may have to go back if something is eventually adopted by City Council and edit or rework our own. That is a fair point. I'd like to buy another thoughts or comments, Ms. Pumphrey. Well, I'm on the mind that I'd like to hear back from the City Council, not that I think that should will affect an ultimate decision on this, but I think it would be, it's actually very respectful to hear back from them. Yes. It's kind of what's modeled in our statement here and sort of proceed from there. I'm really, if they say they are not going to act at this time, then I would support us at our future meeting supporting this for the Planning Commission. But I'd like to hear from them, one way or the other, what they're going to do at this point. Good. Let me, yes, go ahead, I'll go this for the planning commission, but I'd like to hear from them, warmly to the other what they're going to do at this point. Good. Let me, yes, go ahead, Doc. Mr. Chairman, my question is that, two scenarios. One is the city council says, no, this is garbage. We are not ready to accept that. Then does that give us the option again, or courage, that you want to send a similar document and say, okay, you like it or not, but we are adapting this for our own conduct of business. City Council may come back and say, who are you? Do you have any value authority in you? By any, you know, show us where you can do that. So I think it really puts a re-box. I respect the opinion expressed by both the commission. I think if you want to be cautious, then I would wait for the city council to respond. If you want to be bold and risky, then you can, you have already sent that, you can also send this. I prefer that we should wait. Well, let me go back to Commissioner Cunningham's suggestion. Following through, if we were to wait for City Council, would you be friendly to including a response date from City Council? And then we could act or not as appropriate as a commission. I think I would be responsive to putting a date far enough out to give them a reasonable time period to act, or to asking staff to query the rest of the administrative system so that we can get a sense back as to when it reasonably would fit into their agenda, because I would be lary of picking a date that would conflict with other things in terms of forcing it in their agenda. I think if I can come and I think that's a reasonable approach because it says I want us to communicate that we think this is important. I don't think we have to be arrogant or haughty about it and a lot of organizations have things like this so I don't think it's that we're doing something so unique. The language here is broad enough that it doesn't specifically say that I'll shall not meet with so-and-so on this morning at this place. It does sort of say what are ex-what the expectations are for our conduct, which I think has been topic of discussion for a while. And I'd like to see us move on it. So to summarize, I'd like to say to City Council, we'd like some feedback on it because at our meeting on such and such a date, we intend to act on it. And I'd like the idea of staff checking out the availability, get it on their calendar. So they indeed have a chance to respond to it. Would the commission be friendly to this suggestion, to the City Council that we as a commission would like to take action on this by the close of this year. And then ask for their response. Once we hear from City Council what their calendar is, but until that time I think we need to do our homework to find out that that's a reasonable time frame. And I don't have enough information to know what the date certain would be at this time. I know the least. What's the answer? I think you begin to run into a problem with the fiscal year discussion versus calendar year. I think in a business sense, the end of the calendar year. You know, I think in a business sense, the end of the calendar year is probably appropriate. But if you look at this, then we're cranking up the budget process for beginning to talk about the comprehensive plan. In December, a lot of meetings don't occur in December. So now you're really in effect saying the end of November. And then if you say let's go to January, then you're beginning to talk about the budget process that continues into April. I don't know a good time. I think it's the kind of thing that we need to ask staff to give us a date rather than us trying to put it into the motion. Okay, so that makes any sense to you. It does. And I would like to invite an emotion at this time. I think you have one on the floor. Could you repeat it that you've made an appointment to? No, no, I'm withdrawing the amendment. Okay. Was it your motion? Okay, well, what I think we, the motion I believe is that we draft a follow-up letter to our April 20th, 2007 letter regarding the ethics for City Council Board's commissions and committees to requestfully ask for a response. Is there a second to that? I'll second it. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes. All right. Let's go on to the next item on the agenda. There's our staff report. I just wanted to let you know that I, first of all, the next meeting will be the 15th of October, as you were called, instead of the normal meeting date, which would be the first Monday of the month, which is a holiday. So please make sure your calendars reflect that. And I expect to be bringing you in the future a verbal update on some of the activities if you think you might find it useful, particularly in the context of comprehensive planning. Some of the items that are going before the Board of Architectural Review, you know new things that are happening on some of the businesses in town as you drive around and see them. And some of the special use permits, special exceptions that the council will be hearing just so you're aware as people start to talk about the, you know, new business going in here and there, what's happening, even if it's something that's not before this board, because certainly a lot of economic development activity is relevant to this board. Also expect to be putting at the bottom of your agenda sort of things that are coming up or on our horizon. I would say that all of the things that you are showing now on your future agenda item are really the meat of what the Planning Commission responsibility within the city is. There's some pretty heavy items beginning with the Boulevard Master Plan and then going on following that with the comprehensive plan. All of these have potential additional outreach measures unlike a fairly simple, you know, land use case that only affects limited area. So you may want to be thinking about some of the tools that we've talked about in here and different ways to use those. You've seen some of them already use the Sherat in the Fairfax Boulevard Master Plan. May do some sort of an open house. We've done that in the past as you recall and you know different ways to get at some of these projects. So I'll be interested in getting from your input on ways you'd like to tackle some of these. I'll expect right after the first of the year to be bringing forward a schedule for comprehensive plan review. Prior to that time we should be revising some of the outreach documents, particularly the brochure for the Fairfax Boulevard Master Plan in talking about ways to outreach to the community with that. Okay. A quick follow-up question. I believe that with regard to the Fairfax Boulevard Master Plan, there was a statement that at some point we would be receiving follow-up from our work session with some of the other leadership looking at the Boulevard City Council and the bid and others. Where does that stand? That's in production sort of this follow-up redo of a document and what the procedure will be from there. I'm hoping to have it for you at your next meeting. It's about been vetted through some of these other boards to get back to you. And maybe you know what I think might be useful as sort of just a summary bulleted document of the things that happened to sort of glitch everyone's memory from that useful meeting and then show how it was translated into this document that we'll be using for public outreach. Okay. I think that would be a very appropriate time that I presume there will be a staff presentation with regard to the new document. Yes. For us to have a discussion just to follow up on the earlier point on how we use our outreach cannons or guidance now on what we would like to do specific to that agenda item. Does everyone agree with that? Very good. All right. And then let's also follow up on the comprehensive plan discussion that was raised earlier. I think that we should allow adequate time to also think about how we can be more effective with regard to particular elements that have caused some tension for us in reviewing applications over the past year. For example, we want to be sure that we have an ongoing discussion, which I know we've begun with historic Fairfax and others. We want to be sure that we are outreaching to civics or others on particular issues within the Complan. There's some tension along the Route 50 corridor with regard to commercial versus residential development. It would be good to have some feedback from some of the residential communities around Route 50 as we're also outreaching to the businesses in that community as well. And I'm sure there are many other suggestions around that discussion. The zoning ordinance, I just want to ask a quick question to staff as well where we stand with that. I know we're talking about a consultant. What is your vision for timing on that? My expectation is once we sort of go out on the road with the master plan that the actual revision of the tool which would be the form-based code within the zoning ordinance to achieve that would follow pretty much right on its heels. Probably just I think that the general look is toward the end of the year to be accepting a final version of the plan and then going forward with the zoning ordinance review. Okay. Are there any other commission thoughts around these items? Yes, Mr. Foster? I have a couple of questions. The last discussion, maybe not the last discussion, but one of the discussions about the comprehensive plan, Ms. Coleman indicated that we would discuss it section by section, but there was no time schedule set up. We have some sections that may be more or less contentious than others. When you have time, did you begin to think about what our schedule might be, and we can lay it out in the calendar and begin to think this thing forward? And then the second question, I guess, relates to the form-based code. When we had our meeting on August 24th, there was some discussion about it. And the bottom line seemed to be that we really don't know enough yet to make a determination one way or the other of how we should find the happy ground between theory and where we are today. I think the mayor indicated that the steering committee needed to have more information. So I don't know if that takes the form of smaller meetings, a lot of reading material, big meetings, I don't know what form that's going to take, but I think we need to get that education as a planning commission so that we know where we are in the future on some of these issues. I can respond to both of those. And the first, with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, laying out sort of a calendar for reviewing the plan and providing the appropriate amount of time for each section, that's clearly my intention to bring that forward to you for review and massaging to make sure we get at all the points that the planning commission wants to get at. With respect to form-based codes, we've produced and draft in the department a document on what is a form-based code? What are we talking about here that hopefully is in sufficient lay language that three different people reading that document come up with the same answer. That's our goal. And have a description and an understanding of the tool. To that end, we've pretty much laid it out in draft form with some good illustrations. I'm also meeting this week with Arlington County to talk about how their form-based code has worked in practice in the Columbia Pike corridor, What has been produced as a result of that form-based code, what snakes they had to hit on the head while they were doing it, what problems occurred, and how they had to change the code. As we know doubt will, as we go through this process, so I hope to bring all of that information to you when we get into that discussion. I think that's a very good discussion. I just want to ask one more question or your sort of your interpretation. Some of the discussion I've heard around foreign base codes is that it may appropriately place more clear language and authority in staff processing of applications, but at the same time, it pulls away authority from some of the council's boards, what have you and jurisdictions. I'm curious how you respond to that concern that's been voiced or I've heard. Sure. Part of this draft document that we put together lists the pros and the cons of a form-based code. The pros include a much clearer understanding from the point of view of the community, the developer, everybody of what is expected in a certain area, and that if somebody comes in to develop a property in conformance with that expectation that it provides a clearer and easier process for them to go through, which does in many cases involve administrative review. Assuming that the basis of this form-based code has been vetted thoroughly in the public has been involved administrative review. Assuming that the basis of this form based code has been vetted thoroughly in the public, that we have outreach to the public and said if this code is approved, this is what things will look like and that the public has said yes, that's what we want and understand that by going through this process, that's how we'll achieve it. The con is yes on every single project, you don't have then the nitty-itty control over each individual detail of a project, mostly because in a form-based code, a lot of that stuff, the architectural layout, the setback, all of that stuff is very clearly defined up front. But again, this draft document will lay out a lot of those pros and cons and yes, their pluses and minuses to everything. I think that the real proof will be in the pudding to see how other communities have used it, what has come out of it in the field and what problems have there been on both sides and that we will bring to you. I'll be very helpful to Dr. Khan that will turn to Ms. Pumphrey. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. I think I want to go back to the comprehensive plan. I have two comments. Number one, do we have a record of lesson learned? For example, as we went through the last two, three years, what section of the plan were more like controversial, which were hard to implement, and we ended up giving exceptions? Or what are the public comments over the past two years? Either individual or community group has said, this comprehensive plan really lacks this, lacks that. Or some of the people really sent a commendation saying, fantastic, this really was well done. The bottom line is, can we learn from not our mistakes, but learn from what document we developed two years ago. And what pros and cons were there when we were implementing it. And what kind of public comments you have? Is there any record of anecdotes or public hearing that really can be helpful and useful to the commission? Thank you. That's something that I'm hoping with the input from the Planning Commission and the things that were vetted before you all, that you all will be able to help pull out. I think all of us have recognized that there was an issue with historic properties that has occurred fairly recently that caused some monks and one of the things that we had passed on to the historic resources department was really historic resources plan should be carefully done and included as part of this. I think we recognize that. If there has been public discontent with various projects that have resulted from following the guidance and the comprehensive plan, and you could consider that a mistake, well, I think most everybody here will be able to help, you know, lay those sorts of things on the table. I think with respect to going through public input all the way along, that would be an awful tough process. You would have to go through a series of minutes after minutes after minutes. So to the extent that you all can help us identify those things, and I will certainly speak to my predecessors and see if there are some things we should identify that we can do better. Some things are fairly simple. You update the demographics. Well the problem is when your demographics change over time, you need to understand how that relates to the rest of the process. So while you take each section individually, they do transportation pings on economic development and demographics pings on housing and that sort of thing. And I think recognizing those bridges is something we will try to help do as we go through the process. Ms. Poker. I just wanted to say that I remember very well the review of the comp plan and I know that staff always provides a good schedule and kind of thinking process to get through it. Couple things I think we need to pay more attention to them. We built in the last comp plan. I thought it was a good idea, excuse me, a review process. And we said that at six month intervals, at least we were going to go back and tweak it. And from my perspective, I don't feel that we have been able to be very effective there. When I look at some of the development that's been approved, I would say that, in fact, I did ask for this at one point, that we want to see what the effect is of some of the major developments we have going on on other properties that might be developed. Whether it's related to historic properties, I'm thinking broader than that. I'm thinking traffic, I'm thinking floodplain issues, I'm thinking all of the kinds of quality of life issues that you can't anticipate when you say this corner should be this and this corner should be that and all of a sudden you're sitting there looking at a big development wondering how is that going to work out. So I don't know what the answer is but somehow we need to get some kind of way to evaluate that or to tweak the plan if we feel it's necessary. At least ask the question, particularly with all the development. I imagine this year, this plan is going to have a lot of those kinds of a haze just because of where we are with development. The discussion that we had around the PNC property, the staff support documents actually began to compare adjoining properties and how they were zoned and what was being developed. I could see building on that including some of the other areas that Ms. Pumphrey suggested, but that was a helpful document. That change in format was small, but it was a real step in the right direction. Ms. Simmons, anything you'd like to add to the discussion? I just wanted to clarify the date. When is our five-year time frame? When is the date that this needs to be? I'll have to check on that specific date. I do not know what it is. Just kind of curious, because I know where it's sort of in the throes of needing to be in that process as I've come into this job, but I don't know what the specific date is and I'll find that for you. Well, I'm turning in smiley, I was to cutting him because I suspect that he knows. Is there anything I'd like to add to the conversation? Check me if I'm wrong, but every one of us should know the date that our last conflant is adopted as a document. So I'm going to put my neck on the block and say that I believe it was adopted by City Council in 2003. I'm talking about a lot of things that's driving us now. But if it was adopted in 2003, as Mrs. Pumphrey and Mrs. Simless will attest, if we look back to the work that was done, it was done for more than a year and a half before that. Right. So for us to have a document adopted by next summer on a five year schedule, I would not be optimistic that that's going to happen, but I think if we're in process with the review, it will be on track to do that. All right. Well, then, yes, I'm sorry, go ahead. There are two comments that I'll add to it in the Complan. One, how extensive the review is will, again, depend on what we feel as a planning commission is appropriate. The last time we took that long because we felt it was appropriate to do a major review of every section and do significant outreach to all of the community organizations and staff organizations, including HFCI in the process. And as such, that was the same process that was taken five years before. There are some sections that we may or may not be able to streamline and I'll allude to Miss Codeless's demographics. We were dealing with new 2000 census data at that time and at this time we don't have a major updated census data on the city. So I don't know what our sources are, but it may be the following comp plan in 2013, which would give us new census data in 2010 or from that census as it begins to trickle out, to update or spend more time on that portion. So we may be able to tailor the portions we spend time on and interest on. And that's something that staff can help us work on. But we need to give thought to indirect staff as to where we want to spend the time and effort to see that we're properly updating the document. I think those are very good points. Gentlemen, I'm just going to staff to really add our next meeting and come to us with a recommendation considering how tight this time frame is for our consideration, both with regard to outreach as well as addressing the elements of the plan. Yes, Mr. Buster, Mr. Cunham. I just, as Mr. Cunham was chatting, had the thought that maybe we need to spend some time on the demographics because my perception is the rate of change is accelerating versus previous tenure increments. I would say with respect to the demographics, the census is our major source. As you know, we're now gearing up in a pre-census format for the 2010 census. However, there are 2006 population estimates from the census available. We certainly have housing numbers and real estate building numbers and economic development data. But your point was really well taken because the state code says a planning commission of Virginia has to look at its comp plan every five years and decide whether they want to do anything to it. You don't have to do anything to your comp plan for 50 years if you don't want to. There's no requirement. If you keep saying it's valid, it's still current. So picking and choosing what it is, you think needs to be updated is a really valid point. Don't want to make it a process of having to go through the angst of reviewing stuff. You just reviewed a few years ago that may be valid. What can change? V.6-year transportation plan can change. So some of the transportation elements may be valid. What can change V.6-year transportation plan can change to some of the transportation elements, maybe a little iffy, the demographics. We may want to focus on something. We didn't focus on last time, like historic Fairfax. And I'll be glad to bring all of that to you in some suggestions. Yes, Dr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I think the demographic really is a very interesting variable. And it's very telling if you look at the school population and see the number of children, minority children, other mixed-based children, it is really a very clear indication that demographic change is rapidly. Second data, I mean again, is the voting, the voter registration, that really has shifted. And I don't want to make a political statement here, but it really has shifted dramatically to the one side that five years ago that this city really was red state or red city in the... We're red and blue now. Yeah, that's in blue. Yeah. And blue side shade is increasing. You know, so that's a demographic. And if you really talk to the school people like five years ago, we were losing children. I mean, we were losing enrollment. Now, the enrollment of elementary school age, kindergarten is increasing. And that also indicates change in democratic. So I think we don't have solid data, but we really have those at least two sources. And I'd like to answer that. Last thing I think I remember when Mrs. Huffrey was chair, and we talk about there will be demographic and about the Hispanic and other minorities. And at that time, we were really thinking about that even when you do the census, whatever, so we should be geared towards the, so that we can reach those new people coming in, because otherwise they will be left behind. Thank you. Right. Absolutely. The entire Northern Virginia region, to its credit, is becoming much more diverse in every way imaginable. And as our engine, our economic engine, continues to drive the entire Metro DC area. I think it's these both points are all very, very appropriate. I'd also like to suggest that we should be looking at our broader sister or companion jurisdiction and that is some of the issues that they are examining in their cop, meaning Fairfax County and their comprehensive plan and some of the related documents that are submitted to federal sources whether it be to HUD or other agencies as well because that may give us some good indisha or things to consider in our own microanalysis. This is Pumphrey. I was just going to make a comment since we our own microanalysis. Who's hungry? I was just going to make a comment since we're on this demographic thing. That's one of my favorite areas of looking at the data and seeing what that means. What we saw in the and predicted in the last census was a sort of dual thing, more little kids and the aging of the population and a static area in the middle. And out of that came some recommendations for school programs and housing for seniors. And I would suggest to you that we still haven't met our sort of charge in one sense in looking at the housing for seniors in our community. And I hope that as we look at the demographics and we say, you know, what are we seeing in terms of trends that we also have a discussion about what that means because it's demographics are really flat if you just say this is what it is without thinking about. And what does that mean and where does that drive you and how do you think that about planning or development or those kinds of issues. Very good point. And that rolls into the zoning discussion in about 50 corridor discussion, but definitely a very good point. Any other? Yes, Ms. Cunningham. I'm going to digress a little bit from next year's agenda to the remainder of this year's agenda since I think you were moving this way down the dius. I'm a free spirit tonight. Go ahead. Yeah, this is full of our master plan and outreach. I'm a free spirit tonight. Go ahead. Yeah, this is full of our master plan and outreach. As I'm looking at the rest of the calendar that we have outlined at the bottom of our enda, it says the capital improvement plan meetings are December 3rd and December 10th. And those are our two traditional December meetings. And they're back to back one week apart. When I come back to the present and now move up to December 3, then I believe Ms. Kattalessa said October 15, we would meet in lieu of the holiday, and then we'll meet on October 22, which is two meetings, and that's our regular of the scheduled meeting. We have two scheduled in November on the 12th and the 26th, which is the Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday, and that gives us three meetings in a row then from November into early December. And my question or point with this is that we indicated we have an outreach document on the master plan in process. One of our goals as we talked about bringing it back in September was to get through that process, establish an outreach process and a public hearing process so that we could pass that on to City Council in this calendar year. And that pretty much means having it ready to pass on to City Council by November 26th. From that standpoint as I back it up, we've got a fairly aggressive agenda to get it. And I think making some decisions on how we want to handle that process are important probably from a discussion standpoint tonight, so that we lay out how we want to move forward to complete that task. Do you think would be, and this is a collective question for the commissioners, would it be appropriate to schedule an additional meeting focused or possibly additional two meeting focused on that subject alone? Possibly, but I would think that what we need to also have is discussion as we spent time earlier this evening on what we want for outreach because this is one of those areas where we've indicated all along that additional outreach is appropriate. As Mrs. Codillett has just said, if we're going to adopt form-based code, outreach so that the community understands what we're adopting is important. So I think we've got that all tied in together that this is a major undertaking that we still have and the question remains whether we're going to do it in an outreach process that's in concert with City Council. Joint meetings or anything along that line or whether this is a process that we're going to do in a sequential process. And we'll deal with it and then pass it on to City Council. Mr. Foster, you're going to say something. My recollection is that the CIP discussion did not. My recollection is that the CIP discussion did not subside until late January. Easily, I think. So it may be that we can fiddle with the CIP discussion a little. And I'll add, I think delaying or how should I say, I think actually we've lengthened. We didn't delay the process last year. I thought it was very helpful in the quality of information and our deliberation, particularly you played a very active role in that. So I happened to think that would be fine, but I think the point is very well taken that we have, first we need to have a document to look at relative to the Fairfax Boulevard plan. But once we have that document, we really need to focus in on the outreach around it. And I think the point and the concern about scheduling and time are very, very important. Again, let me go back. I believe you said for our next meeting, we should have that document. That's my expectation. Yes. That leaves us the time between October 15th and November 26th. between October 15th and November 26th. In order to start and complete the process, and that's fairly quick for us, historically speaking. And can I ask you, is November 12th, is that a holiday? There's a, I don't know how many, this city, the green state. I will be among them. Okay. I'm thinking that that's correct, but I'm not quite sure. Yeah, the veteran's day is November 11th, so it's the federal government probably has it on the 12th. You don't have it. You don't have it. The city doesn't have it. All right, so we normally hold our meetings. All right. I would suggest I understand you're on a really short time frame here, but if we bring this back at the next meeting between now and the end of the year, even with the two December meetings, we're talking about five planning commission meetings. There's no reason on the December 3rd and 10th meeting that if there is additional discussion or something that we need to do on the master plan and formulate, you can't add that in a CIP. Just say night you have some CIP discussion. Matter of fact, there are some CIP items that are critical to and mesh well with the Fairfax Boulevard Master Plan and that it might be useful to have some concurrency. See, I'll have a little more time to get at the final meet. I'm anxious to bring to you as quickly as I'm able to release it such a document and we'll bring it, you know, my goal is to get it to you the next meeting maybe with some recommendations on outreach and ways that we can even at a planning commission meeting have some kind of a you know series of boards or open house or something to invite the public in specifically and I'm looking for your input if you all will email me with some of your suggestions for ways that we might take it on the road. And see what we can do. I'll be glad to include that in a time schedule to get Mr. Cummings hands really tight timeframe, which it is. There it is. And I think you would be by suggestion that we have a role independent from City Council and it would be a very appropriate use of our time to hear from the community confer as a Commission and make recommendations to the City Council. But again that's our collective judgment is just my thoughts that I'm sharing with you. Any other discussion on future agenda action items? The only future item that I would indicate from that was it is a past item to just add to it and that's the last time that we went out was on the comprehensive plan. And City Council as I recall felt it was very helpful to have joint meetings when we scheduled I believe four meetings at various venues throughout the city who address the upcoming comprehensive plan review and my sense would be the Fairfax Valorant Master Plan might want to follow that same type of format and it would probably be appropriate to see if City Council felt it was appropriate to meet jointly in hosting that kind of an action. Would it be possible to invite a representative from City Council to our discussion on this agenda item at our next meeting. Okay, we'll do that. We'll send a letter to them there asking. Okay? Please. The last time around during class, those were the permanent lesions, so to speak, during the process when we were developing the company at the time. And she was extremely helpful. And I think she was a very useful and productive role in bridging the gap of information. I wonder if there's any possibility that any other she will join us. Well, I think what we should do is send our request to the mayor. And we'd like to collaborate closely on this issue. And a lot of the city council to decide how the wet process is best to move ahead on this. But certainly I know she played a very active role. That would be wonderful. OK. Any other discussion on these items? All right. Then we'll move on to commission comments. I just don't know. It's been a very good robust discussion this evening. Any other thoughts? Mr. Chairman and no comments. All right so we've got to please. I have two things just the real quick. First of all I wasn't here the last time so I didn't get a chance to see the transition between Michelle and Sue, and I just wanted to acknowledge publicly Michelle's role with us and her good work in the time she was trying to haunch her was through many issues, particularly when they were very low staff in the office. So I hope you share my thanks to her. And I just had a technical question. So I was reading about in the newspaper about the easement that was required to go under TT Reynolds and as a result of that easement the city had to buy that property. So I wanted to understand if you do know what the regulations say about putting undergrounding utilities, I believe is the issue there and why the property had to be purchased rather than some other kind of alternative. I've only heard peripherally, I will try and get that information for you. That would be great. Great. Miss Simmons, any comments? All right. Thank you, everyone, and with that, we are adjourned. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪