Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Let me welcome everybody to the Tuesday, June 26th meeting in the Fairfax City Council. If you would please stand for the invocation which will be presented by Council and Greenfield and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This evening I'm going to do something a little different. Normally I do an invocation before the meeting, but last week we laid to rest one of our police lieutenants who died unexpectedly. He was a great police officer who had been with us for over 18 years. Did a great job as our air resource officer, which is where I came to know him. And then also we lost his a nation nine firefighters, which is the worst loss of firefighters since September 11, 2001. So I would ask all of you to evaluate your heads in a moment of silence. Thank you. Thank you. I'm the United States of America and the tutoring public for which it stands on one nation under God in the result of liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. We actually have two presentations before we start our formal agenda. At this time, if we could ask for Beverly Myers, the chair of Friends of Fairfax and the host of our wonderful annual Chocolate Lovers Festival for a very special presentation. Please. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of Council and other distinguished guests. Let me introduce with me Millie Holdaway and Tina Cunningham and myself, where members of the Chocolate or Spestful Committee. The primary purpose of the committee is most of you know is to promote and produce an annual festival in the city to celebrate chocolate. Through this festival each year, we're able to develop and schedule activities to attract visitors to our city and encourage all participants to visit local businesses, as well as recognize the cities to showcase of community spirit. Proceeds from this specifically cheer allows to fund a grant. The 2007 recipient is the Women's Center which is located in Virginia. The Women's Center is a counseling education and information resource that provides psychological, career, financial and legal services to women and families regardless of ability to pay. At this time, I would like to introduce Bikki Kirk-Bride, the Executive Director of the Women's Center, and present her this check for $2,000. Thank you so much. I just wanted to say on behalf of the Women's Center, thank you so much for the support. I did attend the Chocolate Festival and it was a great day and I will say I contributed to the proceeds of the day. It was great and met a lot of great vendors. We just thank you so much for the support of this community. It's so important for a center like ours to have this continued support. We've been around for 32 years and it's just a very strong statement to say that the support continues. So we thank you very much. Great. Thank you. And let me just say is everybody's taking their seat. For those of you in the community and I doubt there's not anybody who does not know the event that we're referring to that's held at Old Town Hall annually, but Beverly and her team of folks, friends and fair facts have sponsored this event for years and years. The event itself is quite a community attraction and one we're very proud to have in the City of Fairfax. But the fact that they raise money and the vines that they do and give it to a charity every year really makes it a very, very special event. And let me just thank all of the leaders and volunteers who put that together. Thank you very much for what you do, our behalf. So thank you. Now, if I could, I have a very special presentation of Proclamation. If I could, let me see if I could ask Joe Adams to please come forward and his daughter Mary Jo Johnson, the two of the police come forward. This is actually a proclamation which evolves into a scholarship to students here in the area and I'd like to read the following proclamation and representative to the two of you if I could. Whereas Margaret Copatric Adams was an outstanding and beloved citizen who in 1960 settled in the then town of Fairfax with her husband, Joe Adams and the four daughters Mary Jo, Jane Margaret and Elizabeth in their home on University Drive just to short-wash from the council chambers. And whereas the city of Fairfax recognizes Margaret Copatric Adams dedicated years of volunteer service to the Board of Architectural Review, her pair St. Leo's the great, the Zontas civic organization of women, the now Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce, the Community Appearance Committee, the Potomac Long Association, the Parent Teachers Association, where her artistic talents, abounding energy, generosity, good humor, honesty, passion for education, and vision are still reflected in our city today. Whereas Margaret was a model of integrity and leadership for the community. She combined a commitment to civic duty and a devotion to raising her family within her entrepreneur spirit and establishing an interior design business. Virginia drapes and interiors here design work great many interiors of homes in the city and the surrounding areas. Whereas the year 2007 marks the 20th anniversary of Margaret Copatric Adam Scholarship Fund, which has been given to more than 40 high school students in the city of Fairfactor during the past 20 years and is testimony to Margaret's legacy of leadership. Now therefore I, Robert F. Letterman, concert with the City Council to hear by proclaim June 26, 2007 is Margaret Copatric Adam's Day. In recognition of her active energizing force for her family, her civic interest, her church, her business for over 25 years until her death in February of 1986. And for her commitment to learning and the value of education that inspired the Margaret Copatric Scholarship Fund. It is my pleasure to present you all this proclamation. It's Alex from over here. We have a picture. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now what I'd like to do is we're going to give away a series of scholarships here to the students. Let me just ask if I can have the entire family of the Adam stand up and let's just recognize them as well. I know there's a number of you here. Okay, and the scholarship's awarded based on a combination of academic strength, extracurricular participation, and personal qualities. Our winners scored above these in the highest standards. The first recipient from the Paul VI High School, we have Francisco at Chocoat. Francisco loves acting and academic learning. We'll combine majors in theater and English at the College of William and Area wonderful university. And let's show our appreciation. And from Fairfax High School, Sumera Yavid, Sumera will attend University of Virginia majoring in biology because research and biology saved her father's life. She aspires to take in the challenge of biological research. Congratulations. Okay. Okay. Okay. And the next presentation from Fairfax High School is Sanjida. Sanjida, Rashi, and Sanjida will be taking her two prize possessions with her to college. They have her violins. Sanjida is the section leader for the Advanced Orchestra and her junior senior years. I love affair with a viola, helped her to balance her pursuit of academic excellence. She will be attending the University of Virginia College of Arts and Science. Congratulations. Thank you. That was for that. Okay, great. We have one more winner, our fourth winner, is Lisa Nugin, who is unable to be here with us. However, she will be attending the University of Virginia along with some of the other recipients. So tonight we mark the 20th anniversary of Margaret Kompachuk Adam Scholarship Program. We welcome and we congratulate the winners and to the family for your leadership and providing these scholarships. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We thank the community that has supported us for these 20 years because we wouldn't have been here without great support from the community and thanks to all of you. Also, I am going to be leaving a little note about the scholarship fund. There will be a few right here. If any of you want to take this and a couple out in the back with an envelope in case you want to learn a little bit more about it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to find more here. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I just make a point of personal privilege. Sure. Why did you walk back? I just want to, just in particular as the Adams, Lee, I just wanted to recognize Jane Flutu's here. I happen to work with her son. Just on a personal note, I just am pleased that you're here and I know that our parents both go way back together and I'm just delighted that you're here tonight. Thank you for being here and your and your daughter Carter as well. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you. Mrs. Cross. I would like to acknowledge the work of Joe's present wife, Carol Scanlon, who organized the evening, organized the presentation. As always, she does a beautiful job. She does. She does. She does. Okay, that brings us to item number four, which is presentations on the public on any item that is on tonight's agenda, but does not call for a public hearing. So if you're here for item 7a, b, or c, d, e, f, g, or H, those are items that will have public hearings later on in the this evening. But if you'd like to address the City Council on any other items that are on tonight's agenda, this would be your opportunity to do so. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody like to address the City Council. Hearing none, we'll move to agenda item number five, which is the adoption of the agenda. I move. Second. Move by Mr. Seventhorn, seconded by Mr. S. Musin. All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a passed unanimously. That now brings us to the approval of the consent agenda, Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Push you in. I move adoption of the consent agenda for agenda item number 6a. Consideration, the published list of delinquent personal property taxes of more than $100 and delinquent real estate taxes agenda item number 6d. Consideration of an award of contract for design and permitting of the Goose Creek Water Treatment Plant raw water station to Hazen and Sawyer PC. And agenda item number 6c, introduction of an ordinance to affect the financing needed for the acquisition of the 11 oak school property located at 105, 1 5 school street, Fairfax, Virginia, the purchase of the 11 oaks school property is required to enable the city to complete the George Mason Boulevard road project. The ordinance will allow the city to award the lease financing to the winning bidder, serving a different purpose than a resolution which is required to authorize the terms of the least financing, the execution of the documents and the appropriation of project funds. And for agenda item number 6a and bia, we've approved the suggested motion in the staff report and for agenda item number 6c and moved to wave the first reading and set the public hearing for July 10th, 2007. Any one wish to object or abstain from the handling of any of these items on the consign agenda? Harry Nunn, all in favor of the motion signify by moving or by voting aye opposed? And it passed unanimously. That now brings us to our public hearings. The agenda item number 7a is a public hearing and council action or request to solve holdings for a special use permit to allow structural alterations and expansion of the nonconforming use and to allow a financial institution with a drive-through window in the C2 retail commercial district to allow a use of development that will generate an estimated average daily traffic volume in excess of 700 trips in the highway quarter, overlay district, to modify or eliminate the required interior imprometer parking, lot landscaping, to modify or eliminate the required separation between building and drive aisles, and a special exception to provide 19 percent landscape open space where 25 percent is required to eliminate the required public street right of way. Dedication and frontage improvements in Fairfax Boulevard and on Warwick Avenue. Is this been properly advertised? Staff report, please. The new thing I would remember is the council. As the mayor stated, the application before us with Boulevard shops at 10,700 Fairfax Boulevard. This will give a brief background. The African-Sixie de Males did bank preferential building. I would replace it with a 3,600 square foot bank, Chevy Chase bank with three lane drive through the window. The African-Rolls supposed to be developed the existing retail center and construct an 8,000 square foot retail addition. That would have a number of people. That would bring the total square footage of the site to under 50,000 square feet, 49,925. The site's located Fairfax Boulevard. Thank you. Go ahead and get electrocuted with this. Between Fairfax Boulevard and Warwick Avenue, it's zone C2, and it's surrounded by C2 uses, but the exception of to the Northwest, which is residential in its park three. The arrows indicate the current side of the, the back would be, that is the Dancor Furniture site, and with the parking areas would be, and with the retail hours showing would be the retail expansion of that site. There currently exists. If I could get you to scoot up as close to the microphone, everything is hard to hear in the back of the room. Thank you. Three curb cuts along the Walwick Avenue. One along here, one along here, and one towards the end of the Walwick intersection. And on Fairfax ball, the whole, it exists four, one long here, one in between the proposed bank and the retail site, and two existing again towards the intersection. As stated, the special use permit, as we're drive through facility, the C2 district, is also a special use permit for the expansion of a non-conforming site. The site itself is not conforming, does not meet the standards, many standards of the zoning ordinance as is. And the use of will generate more than 700 trips per day, I should say, to use this within the HCOD. And it's also the commercial use, accessing a local street that serves residents and neighborhood, in this case, will work together. In terms of criteria of analysis, what we look at is sections of the ordinance which refer back to the comprehensive plan. It looks at land use economy, impact of surrounding neighborhood and adjacent properties. And in terms of the proposal itself, comprehensive plan is supportive of such use at dislocation or such uses. With that, the proposed bank would that also look at scale or where the bank is being placed. At this point, when we talk about the bank, though it's still the change is still stric more regulated, they are making improvements to the site, regulating the comprehensive plan, particularly the community appearance plan with states that have decreased the landscaping, increased tree coverage, provide new sidewalks and street trees along the frontage, which is just as occurring within the site. Also, the economy section states that the city should seem to be developed underutilized parcels. The bank site and the site itself is underutilized with the bank of furniture site not leaving up to full potential. So it seems to meet the comprehensive plan requirements regarding the special use permit. With this, I stated there are a number of special exceptions, mostly dealing with the number of planting islands and parking lot landscaping, open space, and so forth. And then encroachment from the parking area into many of the setbacks of the transition areas and the buffering. So though the applicant is seeking a relief from this, they're all making improvements to the site which don't exist currently. The increasing the permanent interior parking lot landscaping, the increasing the landscaping of open space, I think, are the new bike site, but overall on the property as well from 10 to 20 percent. The providing sidewalks along Fairfax Boulevard and Wallwick Avenue and increasing tree coverage from 3 to 10 percent. And also, again, the construction of modern buildings which goes to the utilization or utilizing the unutilized site. Now with the subdivision variants now, as this is the criteria for this as well, what the applicants requesting is a 12 foot right away from Senneline Reduction. Currently it's 38 feet, they need 50, 12 feet will be required to meet the full current 100 foot requirement of the comprehensive plan. They're asking for variants from that as well as a 10 foot right away on the warwick Avenue side where 50 again is required currently there's 40. And then from the center line, which from the center line to the pavement where 18 feet is required, 8 feet exists now. There's also reduction of the 8 foot trail which meant to say here is the sidewalk. They're not providing the full width requirements but they're providing the 5 foot, a four foot, and a six foot sidewalk along Fairfax Boulevard, four foot along Fairfax Boulevard as well, the six foot in front of the bank property, and the meat town center is getting a four foot, and the five foot sidewalk is along the rear along the whole rear of Warwick Avenue. Now the reason for the request here, and what we looked at as well is there's a concern of parking at this site. And the right-of-way relief would, if not granted, would go into the existing parking that's there, which was about 60 spaces. At this point, they are meeting the parking requirement, but any further reduction would hinder that, and that is a concern at this point they are meeting the parking requirement, but any further reduction would hinder that, and that is a concern at this site. Also, at this point, the master plan is out there, and we're not quite sure where the right away is gonna fall, I believe it's gonna be about 108 feet, but we're not sure what the design file design will be. So at this point, it seemed prudent to just ask for what we could get, which would be the sidewalk along Fairfax Corvart type. Now, in addition to the special use, special exception, and the variance requirements for public improvements, there were other issues with the site that was been addressed or been discussed at the last several work sessions. Again, the big one was the parking amount. Now, they are meeting the requirement of the parking at the site. The initially, I had to propose a restaurant use which now has been replaced with retail. Additionally, the applicant is the visiting employee parking spaces at the fringes of the retail site and the bank site to improve the parking access. Also, there was a concern about the access drive, which I'll show in a slide line run, on the warwick side, which was close to a residential home where fear of noise and backups and so forth has been relocated for the east. The building also been redesigned, which was another concern, so that the Fairfax pull side, aside of the building, is similar to a main entrance before it just looked like a flat wall going along Fairfax pull-up on. The applicant, as stated earlier, has also reduced the number of drive-through lanes for the bank originally was four and now there's three. This was the last concept plan that you've seen at the last work session. And the entrance and question of the curb cup is along here. And with the proposal, it was moved, this blue star is where it is now further east and away from the residential area. This wanted to point that also in terms of the elevations. Well, I'll go to Council ask for a knee wall essentially a three foot wall along the Bank property to be placed Jason to the parking area to minimize the parking that is the view of the parking that's located on Fairfax Boulevard parking that is minimized the view of the parking that's located on Fairfax Boulevard. This is a profile of the bank. The side elevation with the screen wall is the Fairfax Boulevard sign. There's two profiles today. You can see on your monitor, I'm not sure how well it comes up on the monitor, it's up on the screen. Again, that's a three foot wall. This side will skip all of the sign. I have to have color renderings now. Again, this is the top photo is the Fairfax Boulevard side of the building. And the main entry level facing Fairfax Boulevard coming from the east is what you see at the bottom. And this is the rear of the building facing the warwick Avenue, the top building profile. And the secondary entry is coming from the west from Fairfax Boulevard if you're approaching the site. There is also the retail portion that's being expanded and this is the missing party city and this is the area where the retail will be located and this is the facade that is being presented. And with that I thank you for your time. Questions or staff? Mr. R and staff? Yeah, Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. They are adding a pedestrian crossing at Warwick and Fairfax Boulevard. We are not adding it at this time. There's a condition in the pack. And if you've got the blue motions you see an updated version of that. We do need one and it appears to be that we do need one, either the app, you'll either contribute $5,000 towards design study or actual building of crosswalks or other uses that might be there. And right now they're looking at a design stage, natural weather will work or not, and maybe another design. And so we left it open so this flexibility and where the applicant can help with that. Okay, so on page seven of the staff report, you talk about that, but it's not included as a condition, is that correct? It's in the blue sheet state receipt. The number five condition is included in that. Got it here. It originally wasn't the staff report too, but we worked it. Good, thank you. Mr. Grigfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things, one of the multiple work sessions we've had on this item that was raised deals with our own parking requirements for some of these existing shopping centers. If we take a look at that or is there a plan as we're looking at, I guess maybe through the master plan for the boulevard, and it will certainly apply to the city in general that we look at our zoning requirements for existing shopping centers that we look at whether our stringent requirements for additional landscaping actually makes it more difficult for people to redevelop and comply with our parking requirements. In this case, it's difficult to look at the scene. It's more stringent more than anyone else if you took it from a broad perspective. On this site, for example, if we eliminate the parking island requirements, 20 additional spaces would be added on you. But the point of the parking aisle is one, obviously, prosthetics and look is in to break it up. And two, it is to provide when Europe is a destination. And on this asphalt, there's some kind of safe haven in terms of, you know, a place you could try to sneak a car under and get a shadow or a better look to it. So there's a reason for that. If I could, I would say that, you know, with our re-write of our zoning ordinance, it's coming up that's funded that's going to be tacked on to the end of the master planning process, or we'll commence when the master planning process is completed. That's one of the very specific things that's going to be looked at by the consultants as the nature of all the non-conforming parking lots that we have along the corridor and the extent to which our landscaping requirements inhibit redevelopment. That's great. I think this is a shopping center that will experience some of those problems with some of the additional landscaping. Part of the question is, and David, the literature is, are we parking correctly? And at this point, we're yet to determine that. We may be over-park We may be under parking. The parking study itself says we're over parking. You know, that has been provided. But it's a case by case basis and the master plan will give us a new direction. You referenced that as has the applicant a number of times about the parking study and how they're under parked. Does that take into account the parking spaces that are being used for shopping carts? I don't believe so. I haven't seen it identified in the study. How often have you been out there over the last several weeks just looking at the overall condition of the shopping center? Three times. Three. Three. Three times. And I'll certainly raise this with the applicant, but tonight, for example, 12 spaces were taken up. Now, it's supposedly a slow night, and their peak is over the weekend, and I can appreciate that. But tonight, 12 spaces taken up by parking, by shopping carts in parking spaces. Back of the shopping center, grass was overfoot tall. Not tonight now, I want to make sure I make that clear. It was over a foot tall until I called staff and run it to their attention. And then all of a sudden it was cut. So, I'm concerned as we're looking at this, I think the redevelopment makes sense, but I just want to make sure that we're on top of a number of these issues, as we deal with this particular shopping center. I'll ask more questions and be a little bit more direct with the applicant, but I wanted to get a sense from you on the parking. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Harry Nunn, we'll now open the public hearing. Thank you very much, staff, and I'll invite the applicant to present the case. Thank you. John College would be a solid company representing the honor. Over the last few months worked very closely with staff and worked very closely with various council members in the manner to try to come up with a plan for the property. Nick's explanation is very technical as it relates to all the things that are required in order to redevelop the property. The basic fundamental issue is it's an old shopping center that needs a little tender love and care. The issue is we have a building out there, the anchor furniture building as we all know it, that is functionally obsolete. It needs to come down. Because the property was developed a number of years ago, we require certain waivers and variances in order to redevelop it. With that, there is a great deal of expense to go with it. We just happen to be in a market today where we're fortunate enough to be able to locate a bank that is able to situate itself on that location. And at the same time, be able to expand the building a little bit to be able to accommodate some of the economic demands of redeveloping an old dysfunctional asset. With that, we worked, again again closely with staff. We've reached out to the community to find out what their needs were. We met with Fairchester Woods and Cobdale and we went through the plans and it was supported. I think it was well received and didn't really hear any negative comments about the proposed development. As far as some of the things we heard about landscaping, pedestrian connectivity, relocating the warwick entrance, concerns about the access to Fairfax Boulevard at the light. And yes, we've heard about the carts. As far as some of those issues, we try to address them. The parking, the parking is a concern as it relates to the super-H. And what we've done there is we've been working with the store manager to try to identify employee parking to alleviate some of those pressures on that side of the shopping center. We've been working with the store manager as it relates to the carts. And I have driven by on occasion. And I've inspected the carts. And yes, there are cards occasionally in the spaces. But at the same time I see the cards in the spaces I also see one or two employees monitoring that parking field going out and getting those cards and bringing them in because the volumes that are done at that particular location. Carts are constantly out in the parking fields and they're constantly being picked up and brought back to the store. Tonight I was at the shopping center as well and yes, there were a couple of carts in the spaces and there was an employee out there monitoring those spaces. As far as the concern over the landscaping, we appreciate you bringing that to our attention. Our people got run on it and did exactly what was supposed to be done. You tell us there's a problem and we try to address it. As far as the reconfiguration and the landscaping and the islands, we're putting in the landscape islands where we can fit them in. For example, at the entrance, we recently expanded those landscape violence because of the concerns of the pedestrian connectivity from Fairfax Boulevard back to the shopping center. We had previously had a walkway laid out. We didn't feel that was really adequate. It didn't serve the needs of being able created a very comfortable inviting transition from the street to the center. And it also, there was concerns over the clogging at that and the traffic movements at that intersection. By creating those landscapes down as we felt it was twofold benefit. One, creating a better transition for the pedestrians to the center and two, creating a more channeled approach into that signal light. In addition, those parking spaces are getting converted over to, there's six spaces there, those are getting converted over to employee parking. As far as other pedestrian connectivity, we have it going all the way down. Fairfax Boulevard, all the way down in Warwick, it fully connects and then through the site. There's multiple ways to get from buildings, from the bank, to the main building, and back to the streets. As far as Warwick is difficult as it was to get approved, we think that the layout of the warwick access is actually superior now. It creates a less inviting cut-through. It created a, basically a channel approach which slows down the traffic inside the development. It allowed for the fence to be extended more landscaping than we put in. As far as the bank, I think the mayor's suggestion on that elevation was very sound. I think it makes a better presence and better presentation to the community. As far as the wall, the wall is enhances that curb appeal as you traverse up and down Fairfax Boulevard. And again, the landscape, and I was surprised that there was an adequate room to put in the wall, the landscaping, and the walkway. And initially I thought we would have to make a difficult decision. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was able to fit in there. So through every step of this process, we've tried to work closely with staff, the leaders of community, as well as the neighbors that abut it as well as the neighborhood associations that are surrounding the development. And throughout the whole process, we've heard positive things and we think that what we're doing is the right thing and we think what we're doing is going to be very positive and a very strong step forward to the improvement of that Fairfax Boulevard corridor. And when you get to the point where you adopt a very dense development in the future as a master plan, we will then look at those opportunities and strive as the economics of those opportunities arise to move in that direction. But today what we're faced with is a single building that is not performing, we're fortunate enough today to have a tenet in that building. But there are not that many furniture uses that occupy spaces that are configured like that. And we hope that the retail or there in the furniture operator there is successful, but there's no guarantees at this point in time. Our belief would be now is the opportunity to take advantage of a redevelopment opportunity. So we would ask your favorable consideration to our request. Questions? Mr. Greenfield? Mr. Mayor, just a comment. I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I certainly think the bank is a step in the right direction getting rid of a furniture store that has been underperforming for a long time in a building that hasn't had any TLC for a long time. But as I have explained, expressed to you both privately and publicly, Mike and Cern has always been parking at the shopping center. It is tight. And that's your victim of your own success. And again, I think this body has been with you for 13 years when we supported you to tear down the other side and get rid of what was there and you wanted to put in a Hollywood video store and you wanted large signs because that's what was needed. We supported that. Then when SuperFresh went out, SuperH Mark came in, we supported that. When you got rid of McGritter's and you redid this side of the shopping center, we supported that. But the one point I would disagree with you on is it is not our staff's job to pick up the phone and call you and tell you there's a problem in your shopping center. It is your job to come out here and monitor or have someone on site to monitor this shopping center to be on top of problems. Hearing from citizens or some of our own personal observations in my opinion that the grass is over a foot tall in the back of the shopping center and that's what the people on Warwick Avenue have to look at is inexcusable. Seeing carts, I recognize you were there tonight. We actually passed each other on Warwick. I was going and you were coming to City Hall, but as you look at that, I didn't see the individual that you were referring to that was monitoring the parking lot. But if that problem exists, and that was my point, if that problem exists tonight, when it's a quiet night in that shopping center, imagine what that problem is like when they're busy and they can't keep up. So I think some better oversight of the shopping center is necessary. Again, I'm supportive of what you're trying to do here. It is a difficult shopping center. It's a difficult piece of property to try to redevelop and get the buildings cited in such a way that you have that visible traffic as you drive by. Salt does a nice job with a number of their shopping centers around the Washington metropolitan area. So I certainly am not concerned about you I saw it as a nice job with a number of their shopping centers around the Washington metropolitan area. So I certainly am not concerned about you as a corporate citizen and what you're trying to do here in the city of Fairfax, but I do believe you can do a better job of taking care of this. I mean, yes, if we get compliance and we follow up on them, sure we're going to call and make sure it gets taken care of and we'll call your staff. in my opinion it shouldn't have to get to that point. I couldn't believe it. You're absolutely right and I apologize and to have our organization that there wasn't maintenance problem. I will make sure we monitor closely in the future. Thank you. I'll miss cross. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a couple of questions. The area, the pie shaped area at the very eastern most point of the property. It appears to be totally landscaped with trees, shrubs. Is there grass in that environment? Have we finalized landscaping? Have we finalized landscaping plan there? Is it? We finalize. You'll have to come for it and talk into the mic and find if you don't mind. Brian Downey with Saul Centres. We have the landscape plan, I guess I'd say, an ask Nick maybe for his opinion, I'll at least finalize for purposes of this application. And it's got a full schedule of plantings shrubs, trees. My guess is it doesn't call out the ground cover, but we would typically put grass there as well as mulch at the base of the plantings. And this would be under your management and your care, is that right? It's in terms of watering it and watering it. It's on our property correct. Okay. Is there any plan here for any benches or any kind of public furniture? Not at this time. The bus stop is right at that in that area, is that correct? I know there's a bus stop up more wickaways. There's no bus stop right here? I don't really know. I know there's more work near the super-h. There's a break in the fence and there's a bus stop there. Mr. Colonid, are you aware of whether there's a bus stop along here? It's past the same shop on Warwick. It's not on Fairfax Boulevard. Okay. Okay. I want to do this location. The bus turns right on Warwick, so there's no bus definitely. All right. My mistake. I thought I saw one on the outline. I would encourage you to try to do something decorative and lovely in this area. I think it's a real centerpiece for this whole busy intersection that we have going on there with the floorway. And it's perfect, full of art. I don't know how many other roads come in there, but it would be important to me. We would agree with the 100%, it's a important to me. We would agree with you 100%. It's a very vital corner. And we'll try to make it as attractive as possible. And we'll be presenting it, I guess, the final landscape plans to staff and we'll work with you if there's something specific you'd like us to entertain. Thank you. I read in the reading that it's asked me, there are 20 employees in this shopping center. 20 employees. Complete parking spaces. 20 employee parking places. But how many how many employees do you have any idea? I have to do a survey with our management group. But I would I would think that that would be woefully inadequate on the boulevard side. On on in this complex. How many people I would think that that would be woefully inadequate. On the bull of art side? On in this complex. How many people would want to go? I would think the super-H has a considerably more than that. As far as the small shops, it's generally one or two people. And then when you get into, I guess, the larger shops, I would say you probably have five to ten. So what it be fair to say that you probably have five to ten. So what it be fair to say that you probably have 35 to 40 employees at the site? Possibly, but I would suggest that some of them take Metro as well. Not everyone drives their car. But even at that, we're probably losing, we're going to have more employee parking needs than 20 spaces. Is that right? Well, I could let you know that I've driven by the side of numerous occasions and we have painted the employee parking spaces blue and I would tell you that substantially, substantially all of them seem to be empty right now. So as far as how many employees are not parking there's supposed to be, we're going to have to monitor that. And our management people will be so. Mr. Cross, would you yield for one question? On the serve of the firm. Thank you, sir. The, maybe it's a question for staff which deals with, are these, are these counted as one complex? We keep going back and forth with larger property, which I understand. But in terms of this application, are these treated as different, are these treated as the same? Okay. this application or these treated as different or these treated as the same. Okay. I mean, I understand since the Mr. Green that microphone one of those microphones is absolutely as dead. And I think it's the one on your right is the one that works. Imagine what 25 million can buy you right? I think they're both. But but in I think it's a fair question because it's come up several times tonight in the Springfield and this is gross and we keep sort of merging these discussions and I just don't want to muddy the waters. I think these are, you know, we have to treat them. I know that they're connected. It's the same property owner, but they're separate considerations. And I, you know, I think in terms of, I'm certain that Super H has its own designated parking. Obviously, the center is so popular that it ends up overwhelming it. I worry as with road widening, which we'll talk about later on this evening, more roads you build, the more people that like to drive on them. So it gets forward to sometimes you can create these circumstances where they get a little out of control. But I just wanted to answer that question. I've got it. Thank you. This is rough. Thank you. I just think it's important that we call a spade a spade here. And I am obviously 20 parking places that are clearly not being enforced for employee parking in the real world is going the shopping center is going to be taxed for more parking for employees than what we've accounted for here. And we have no mechanism at all to be sure that the employees are using the remote locations that you've provided for them. You have a way to ensure that that happens? Our management people will visit with the store managers and the store managers will give cars and license plates and then they monitor the parking lots to make sure those cars are parked in the designated areas. That's one of the concerns on the parking, but I am. The other thing I wanted to bring up, and I would ask Mr. Hudson if we were going to build- If I could, these questions should be addressed to the applicant. We'll get a chance. Is it something that will follow up to the applicant here? Okay. If the city were going to build a walkway from the light to the sidewalk at the pet smart, just give me a ballpark as to what that might cost. I really don't have a ballpark for that. Maybe. What would it be fair to say that it would be vastly more than $5,000? From where to where? From the crossing where many are all the six students cross over to the north side of the road. So across the street? Right. To the sidewalk at the Petzmark. Right. Typically the stands asphalt, crosswalks, about that length would cost around 12 to 15,000. If we add pedestrian signals, that would be another 5,000. Approximately. So we're talking $20,000 now to add some pedestrian safety to this parking lot. Is that correct? Approximately. And we're only asking the applicant here for 5,000? I think you're confusing the access points. That one is for warwick and Fairfax Boulevard as I understand it the pedestrian connectivity across to the the school don't we already have that existing? Yeah, that's already interesting. He's across And we're taking this is just on the warwick side. That is correct. That was something that was just brought up recently and It was a very complex intersection so we're contributing to that analysis. So this is really just a stamped, a skull ocquey across that intersection. So I made 5,000 is basically to look at the issue, to see if putting a crosswalk there would have an impact on the figment function along that, along that route. I think we would have to study that before we could put across walk in. And again, this is where that triangular piece of property is at the very far end. Well, okay, it's not up here further further I guess it'd be west Where the drive comes in and you come up against the side of the building of the no to my my understanding of it was It's right at the point of that triangle at the where the light is warwick and Fairfax Boulevard and the crosswalk that was suggested would go across Warwick to the other side where there's another condition that is somewhat untraditional. Okay. Would this be in the the approximate location of the bus shelter? Where's the bus shelter? Sun warwick. I got that part. Is it close to the corner? We don't have any bus shelters in the warwick man. We only have a bus stop. A bus stop? No bus stop? No shelters. No man. Where is it? So does this walkway connect one side of the road to the bus stop on the other side? Is it same general location? Along where with there's there are no sidewalks along where we At least on the other side where we have a bus stop There are no side books. Vasta is almost, I'll be back, the building. A few. We're back up to that picture. If I could Mr. Mayor, right? I think it's on, but it's not. Mr. Zuerthorne said the technology is great when it works. That little island here at the end of the, looks like the blockbuster. And you see the sidewalk that goes out, and then there's a paint across walk there, and it goes out between a break in the fence. There's a sidewalk there, and there is a bus stop on that side. That's right. And then there is a bus stop on that side. That's right. And then there's another bus stop on the other side for the bus that's heading west on Warwick. But there isn't any room to put a shelter there because one, it's in somebody's front yard if you're heading west and two on this one. You've got landscaping, you've got fencing in this area. It is used but there's no room to put a shelter there. But you can see the pedestrian crosswalk, even within the shopping center that's there. If you look at this, looking at this area of the foreground. As far as the existing sidewalk, my recollection is it ends at the entry point to the shopping centers that exist today on Warwick. What we would be proposing to do is relocating that Warwick access and extending the fence down, extending the sidewalk, taking the sidewalk all the way to the intersection and then bringing that sidewalk all the way down Fairfax Boulevard. So there's a substantial investment in sidewalk. Thank you. Fairfax Boulevard, so there's a substantial investment in sidewalk. Thank you. Any other questions? The app, this is Lyon. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to go back. Thank you, Mr. Silverhorn, for making a distinction between the two properties. If I recall, the first time that you came to at a work session, you had a restaurant attached. How large was that restaurant that you had attached at that time where the retail was going to be set up? I think we made a request for a restaurant use of about 5,200 square feet, somewhere thereabouts. Okay. And I know to add a little vinegar to the water here, the oil to the vinegar, whatever it is. I have more concerns about more retail being put here than a restaurant that would be more, that would, as we grow and expand, you can usually sell the restaurant and then put another restaurant in, whereas these retail spaces, I think that they become more difficult to fill. Am I correct about that over history? I would say in this marketplace we have a strong track record of keeping the spaces pretty well occupied. Okay. It's really a desire of use more than anything as far as keeping them filled. If I can continue. When you, I did ask actually for to take a look at the restaurant uses again, because I am not really, and I apologize for not talking in favor or against the retail portion of this earlier. But after thinking about it and looking at this for quite a while, I would prefer a restaurant in that retail section, and I do understand that the parking could become an issue. And you did send me, and I think the rest of the council via email, a chart that would allow, talk about the type of parking we would need and the waivers that we would need for that. And so far, your development that you're working on, me has no waivers for parking. So I wonder if you could go into a little explanation with me about the parking. If we chose to do a 4,000 square foot restaurant and what type of restaurant would go in there and a 5,000 square foot restaurant and what type of restaurant you would consider to be going in there. Because I do believe that that end of town needs a nice restaurant to go to. I'll be able to walk to. So and and then, okay, and then I have another question about the community. So. Okay. As far as the, I guess the restaurant uses, our experience would lead us to believe there's adequate parking there for retail as well as restaurant uses. We believe that the restaurant capability of that center when redeveloped will allow between 5 and 6,000 square feet of restaurant use. That estimate is based upon our experience managing shopping centers throughout the Washington Metroplex. Generally speaking, if you're somewhere in the 4.5 per thousand range, you have adequate parking. With that restaurant use in there, we would have that percentage of ratio covered to allow that kind of occupancy. As far as restaurant uses, you go from smaller restaurants to larger restaurants and it expands your opportunities for those restaurant operators. Smaller operators tend to be independent. Somebody who has a fantastic chef who wants to open their own restaurant. And generally speaking, they have their chefs and other restaurants and their employees and they want to branch out on their own and create their own signature. Those type of opportunities are out there and we pursue them. They generally take a little bit more understanding. They take a little bit more, I guess, financing to assist with them versus getting into a national or a regional type of restaurant operator. And I would say there was type of operators generally in the 55 to 65 100 square foot range. And those are national or regional chains that are basically have a machine that they know how to go out and find their locations and operate it pretty much in a cooking cutter fashion. Okay, so thank you for that. And when you came to council, had you talk to the residents about the restaurant use versus the retail use when you had met with the community? I don't believe we got into that kind of detail as far as uses we were basically introduced the plan as it relates to taking down the danker building at that time we had a little different configuration to the bank and we had the 8,000 square foot facility. For just a restaurant or did you? Well it's not specifically identified as a restaurant. It's a retail which we would like to have the opportunity to possibly consider a restaurant, but with the concerns over parking, we've opted just to look at retail usage. Well, I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the restaurant again. And in one, can you talk to me then about the, excuse me, can you talk to me then about the parking for, let's say, a 5,000 square foot restaurant. I really, your chart was a little muddy for me. So how many extra parking spaces would we need for you to have the 5,000 square foot restaurant? I think the table indicated we probably need a waiver of about 25 parking spaces. 25 parking. I think that's my recollection. Okay. Well, I would, my council will take a look at that because I think that in, in, in, when we're looking at redoing the fax boulevard, I would, you know, anyway, I thank you very much for your, for your information. You're welcome. Any other questions from the I? Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, I'll be brief. Just a follow-up on that. I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to be working here. So I also believe you suggested in one of the work sessions that if the council wanted to explore at some point in the future, a restaurant going into this space that they come back to us separately and go through the process of getting the reduction in parking, essentially a special exception to have that reduction in parking by 25 spaces. Isn't that correct? So I mean, tonight, approving this tonight does not preclude a restaurant from going in there. It just means that you would have to, that restaurant tour and or you would have to come back for that approval a little later time. That is correct. What we would be instructing our marketing teams to go out and pursue restaurant uses with the idea that when one is secured they would have the opportunity to come up and make a presentation to the governing body of Fairfax and you all make a decision whether it was acceptable or not. Great. Mr. Mayor. I just have one point of clarification and I'll look to both gentlemen here because it's related, but it deals with the issue of the restaurant, and that is you were saying that you believe that you have the adequate space for 4,500 to 6,500 spare progressive restaurants, 6,000 for up to based on your own experience at other centers. I'm guessing that this is totally driven by our own code. My correct. If he's convinced that he has sufficient parking, then it would be our code that's saying that he doesn't have sufficient parking. Okay, because I'm, you know, just as we'll talk about here in a moment, we go to debate this. There's, you know, six different opinions up here, maybe even seven. So on how this ought to be structured. But thank you. Any other questions, the applicant? Okay, hearing none, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Whoa. This is a public hearing. I'll now open the public hearing. Kim Luckimba is the first to sign up. Give us your name and address for the record please. Kim Luckimba, 1802, Wartrex Street, Fair Chester Woods. I have spoken with the applicant a couple of times of the phone and my husband, President of Civic Association, has received several mailers from them. They have reached out to the community nicely. We've had many discussions. They've been well received and been productive. There are a couple things that I particularly appreciate personally. And that is the care that's being given to Mrs. Mahoney, who lives at that little house on Warwick and Burrows. And a lot of us in the community are very protective of her and how she has received and treated with the curb cut being right in front of her house and things like that. If we see something going on, we stop in a check on her. So that being said, there are still a couple of questions and concerns that we have. The biggest one, well not the biggest. Well, first one I would say would be, as you alluded to, Mr. Greenfield, the landscaping upkeep. Had something that Mrs. Mahoney has discussed with me and with my husband, about leaves blowing all over her yard after she's already had it picked up because I haven't been cleaned up on the other side of the road or the grass being really tall, trash from the bus stops blowing over to her side of the road and into her yard She goes out and cleans it up We've had some complaints about the smell from the dumpsters behind super-h So I think they need to be more responsible in keeping them cleaned out a little bit better The other stuff that's going on And I was just reading through the materials and I saw back in the old, whatever this agreement is back in December of 98 about the, sharing the parking between the shops and the bull of our shopping center. But something that we've stated that would be helpful to us to support some of the smaller businesses because of the raging success of-age. We can't get to some of the other smaller businesses in that shopping center. While it's in conflict with this agreement, it would be highly helpful. And this is something we have requested several times to have parking only signs, just a few, for like subway, for blockbusters, like that, because people are parking behind Petco and getting towed in the past. You're having to park way over on the other side like Park Party City pet co and walk over to blockbuster if you want to be legal and that's not very conducive. You have people ripping through that shopping center, raiding not to over and that's not acceptable either. So things like that need to be taken into consideration and need to be controlled in some manner. The other thing that we have noticed in regards to some of the use of the shocking center has been, and this was a concern that we had way back when discussions first came about about super-race moving in, and we were concerned about bus traffic, and we have seen it. And that's something that we were not real thrilled about to begin with. But what happens when the buses come in, you've got more parking spaces taken up. So you have more of the overflow parking going on. No, it doesn't go into the city streets, which is fine. But it does go over everything else, so it makes it a little bit more difficult for the usage of the shopping center. So that's something else that we would like to have taken into consideration. And then just for as a, this aside, no question with all the conversation going on about the master plan. I am just curious how this stuff meets in regards to the proposed master plan. If any of this is in conflict with what a lot of what we're reading about in the plan states, or if it is, if it goes along with it in some regard. So those are our big questions and concerns. Thank you. Anybody else has previously seen signed up when anybody would like to address the city council on this item? Mr. Redell. Gerry Ogdale, 3920 pad water. I wasn't gonna say anything until I heard mentioned of the fact there's a future plan potential to put in a restaurant and has already mentioned of right now there being questionable parking certainly with the addition of the restaurant does that make sense. Thank you Mr. Adele. Anybody else like to address the City Council? Harry, none. We'll close the public hearing. I'll place the matter in the hands of the council. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Chair, over there. This is one of those long ones. I'm not prepared with me. I move the City Council approved the request of Saul Holdings, limited by David Houston attorney and agent for special use permit pursuits City Code section 110 to 7 826 and 110 874 A1 110 874 B2 110 874 B3 to allow financial institution with a drive-through window in the highway overlay court or overlay district on a premises known as tax on our process 57-1-2-62 63-64 also known as 1-670 and 1-700 Perfect full of art with the following proposed development conditions one the generalized development plan and Development of the application property shall be in substantial report conformance with the GDP and development of the application property shall be in substantial report conformance with the GDP. Lighting the site and building amount of lighting shall be provided in conformance with city code. Prior to site plan approval the applicant shall submit a photometric plan for review and approval by the zoning administrator. The maximum illumination light level from all sources shall not exceed 0.5 feet candles at the property line. In addition lighting fixtures shall not cause direct glare or direct light beyond the building facade onto neighboring residential properties. Three, architectural design proposed of the proposed building shell generally conformed to the character and quality of the building elevations based on BAR approval. Number four, trash prior to issuance of non-residential use permits, the applicant shall screen the dumpster with an enclosed that satisfied city code requirements and is architecturally compatible with a proposed retail and restaurant. Additionally, trash pickup or site sweeping and delivery operations at Fairfax Boulevard shall comply with the 1998 rezoning profits associated with the shops at Fairfax. Number five, pedestrian crossing improvements, the applicant is shopping for $5,000 for design and or destruction towards pedestrian improvements and the vicinity of Fairfax Boulevard and Warwick Avenue. And that's it. Is there a second? Second. We will be by Mr. Silverthorne, second and by Mr. Sline discussion. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Silverthorne. You know, we have taken, I think, and unusually, well, maybe not for this council, I was going to say an unusually long time to deliberate and to consider this plan. And I, first of all, want to compliment the applicant for doing what I think is really good, a really good foundation and groundwork here in terms of outreach to the community. And I appreciate Miss Luckabaw speaking as an individual but also talking about her husband as president of the Fair Chester Wood Civic Association. I've also spoken to several neighbors. Most of them complimentary of Saul, I will tell you that I did here as Mr. Greenfield has from one individual and frankly his concerns are legitimate and I concur with Mr. Greenfield that we ought to ensure from your angle that you're doing what you can to make sure that the property is maintained appropriately. And that goes for the entire center and up to what I think would be the standards that you want it maintained anyway, which I think benefits not only you as a company, but the tenants and the neighbors and the health business. But I also want to just mention that as I sort of alluded to with seven people on this body as we've seen in the last six months of discussing this, you've come up with often seven different opinions on how this property ought to be fixed. And I use the term fixed because it's been a challenging property. I know for Saul for God's probably 30 years or however long when the first center went in years ago. I just want to compliment you for keeping at it. And you know, my concerns that we talked about even way back when when you first came to see us however long ago was nine months ago or so. I have been largely addressed. You and I have spent a good deal of time together either by email or telephone or in person. And you know, the community outreach as I mentioned has been very good so I just want to compliment you I think this is a good plan yeah I think we could all tinker around the edges to make it better all of us might have a different opinion which is part of the problem you know the minute we start adding a restaurant then it gives on the parking which someone else is concerned about so this might actually strike the right balance and often in these these issues, finding that balance is the way to get things approved. And I think this makes the most sense. So I just want to thank you for that and I appreciate the community coming on as well. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, thank you. I too want to thank the residents for coming out and talking about this matter. And for everyone working hard over the last six months. And I I, too, want to thank the residents for coming out and talking about this matter and for everyone working hard over the last six months and I appreciate the applicant working with me over the last couple of weeks about this restaurant and the parking and I look forward to hearing possibly about a restaurant later. But I do agree with Mr. Sovrthorn. This is a nice balance. I look forward to that corner looking nicer and a little more parking for me to get into the black busters myself. I am one of those people that has to park behind Petco. But I do hope that the applicant has heard us about the landscaping and the upkeep, keeping the carts out of the parking lot. And really trying to keep within the master plan, I appreciate all the landscaping that they're going to do and the pedestrian sidewalk. So Mr. Mayor, I look forward to voting yes on this project. Other comments? Miss Koss? I'm afraid that I can't vote yes for this. My main concern on this is the parking. I really feel that this site is already troubled, a troubled, troubled people have issues with parking in this vicinity. As someone said earlier, you really are a victim of your own success. You have a number of very popular businesses in those two areas. And even on a good day, it's hard to find a place to park there. And now we're going to add considerably more footage. At the moment, it appears that it will be retail footage. But even if it were a restaurant, I think it would still be under park. The unfortunate thing it seems to me is that, and I think I said this in the first work session, I am totally on board with the bank and wish that I could vote for one and not the other. It's too bad in my mind that these are not two separate applications because I think the bank is a great project and you've done a really fine job with it. But unfortunately we'll be voting no because of my concerns about traffic patterns within the rest of the shopping center and the availability of parking. Thank you. Any other comments? Harry Nunn, we will vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Opposed? It passed by a vote of five to one with councilman, excuse me, four, the trial we're missing one. Four to one with councilwoman Cross and opposition. That now brings us to agenda item number seven. Mr. Mayor. 4-1 with Councilwoman Cross in opposition. That now brings us to agenda item number seven. Mr. Mayor. Oh, that's right. We have several other promotions, please. The screen, Phil. Please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the City Council for the request of Saul Holdings limited by David Houston, attorney, agent, pursuant to City Code Section 110-263, or special exception to city code section 110-259-A 1A to modify or eliminate the required interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping. Pursuit to city codes 110-158, a special exception to city code section 110-153 to modify or eliminate the required separation between building and drive aisle and pursuant to city code section 110-783-6, a special exception to city code section 110-783-4 to reduce the required landscaping open space on the premises known as tax map parcels 57-1-002-6263 and 64 also known as 10670 and 10700, Fairfax Boulevard with the following condition. The applicant will appear before the City Council on an annual basis to report on the overall condition of the shopping center and will continue until such time that the Council no longer deems it necessary. I agree. Hearing no second that will die is their emotion. I either need a second or a motion. I'll second. Just a discussion. Moving by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mrs. Lyne, discussion. Mr. Mayor, the reason I'm in that condition is we have all expressed concern over the last number of years when this applicant has been before us to the shopping center and we have heard from the community this evening and we've heard from other members of the community that have either emailed us or called us on this issue. The frustration over some of the issues that we talked about. The only way to try to get them to adhere and follow through on this is to come back before us on an annual basis. And this may only take a year, it may take two years, but at least they're going to come back before us and talk to us about the overall condition of the shopping center. And when we're comfortable that this is moving in the direction that it should, it's a condition that can be removed. Any other discussion? I'm Mayor, Mr. Souther. I'll support this, but I do feel, I mean, I hope that the applicant has gotten the message, but Greenfield thinks this is the best way to approach it. I'll support it. I just, you know, it's, staff, staff does his well, Mr. Silverhorn. Right. That's never been a convincing factor for me. But thank you. I'll do it. I'll do it. So, but thank you. I'll support any other discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? Passed by a vote of four to one with Councilwoman Cross in opposition. Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that the City Council pursuant to City Code Section 86-10 approve the request of Boulevard Shopping Center Inc. Perverance to the requirements of subdivision code Section 86-8 to permit a subdivision of land without providing the required public improvements for Fairfax Boulevard in Warwick Avenue, right-save way for the property located down the premises described as tax map parcel 57-1-002-62-63 and 64, also known as 106-701-107-00, a perfect boulevard for the following reasons. Number one, there are extraordinary circumstances where in the application of the requirements of chapter 86 of the city code would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficult or hardship upon the owner of the property. And number two, the requested variances can be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Chapter 86 of the City Code. Second. Moving by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mrs. Lioney, discussion. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? No. And it passed by vote of 4 to 1 Councilman Cross in opposition. Mr. Greenfield? So one more. Is there one more? That's it? Okay, great. All right. That now brings us to item number 7b, which is a public hearing and council action on our request to CH Rility. The third Old Town Village LLC to allow a building mounted tenet sign at high graded than 3.5 feet above the finish floor level of the second story and to allow a building mounted tenet signage on the building wall other than the building frontage on the C2 retail commercial in Old Town Fairfax transition overlay districts. On the premises known as 3950 University Drive 3955 and 3925 Chamber of Droid and 10420 North Street. Is this been properly advertised? Staff report. Thank you, Mayor Letter and good evening to the members of City Council. The application property, as you know, is the Old Town Village, which is located in the city of Fairfax. It's north of North Street between Jane Bridge Road and University Drive. The applicant requests special exception approval this evening, and that City Council would review their application for a tenant signage located at a height that exceeds the maximum permitted by City Code. Currently the code only allows for building mounted tenet signage that's located no more than three and a half feet above the second, the finished floor level of the second story. The applicant proposes to locate signage generally at heights above the second floor windows or below, generally below the third floor windows. This is requested because generally of the nature of this proposal or this development, as you know, Old Town Village is a mixed-use commercial center. Generally there will be predominantly first floor retail and restaurant uses with office uses on the second and third levels. This is unique type of development in the city of Fairfax, both because of its mixed-use character as well as its architectural features. The two in combination have resulted in a bit of a special need for an exception to the sign code regulations that limit sign height. As you can see, this is just one of the elevations on the viewing monitor of the buildings along Chamberlain Road. The package that was given to the City Council in preparation with this evening's meeting contained the actual master plan, the signage master plan that the applicant has submitted. And in that master plan, you will see all of the elevations and notations that indicate where the tenant signage will exceed the maximum permit it by, or the tenant, sorry, the height of the tenant signage, will exceed the maximum permit it by code. But I didn't want to go through a slideshow of each elevation. So I only have one that is really representative of the concept, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about the other elevations. And of course, the applicant is here to do the same. But as you see on the viewing monitor, the proposed signage along Chain Bridge Road would be located above the second story windows, actually in the cornishing feature. The red line indicates the maximum that is currently permitted by code. You can see that that would conflict with the placement of the building windows in some cases or even with the architectural detailing around the building windows on other elevations. Now the applicant has submitted a master sign plan. The master sign plan is required for or actually is a benefit because it allows the applicant to enjoy allows the development to enjoy signage above the maximum permitted by the city code. So there there would be more signage than the city code would allow for development that did not have a master sign plan. The master sign plan, however, is subject to the approval of the Board of Architecture Review. And the BAR actually considered this applicant's master sign plan on June 20th and approved it. The Board of Architecture Review approved the master sign plan with about four conditions that the signage and the sign plan is installed in conformance with the master plan that the applicant modify the text and the master sign plan to allow signage panels over primary entryways for retail and resident and restaurant tenants. the resident retailing and restaurant tenants that the tenants would be required to obtain the BAR administrative approval for all signs and that all signs will require the necessary city sign approvals or city sign permits. The Board of Architecture Review is also required to forward to City Council recommendation on any exceptions in the Old Town transition district. In this case, the exception is to a height requirement. And the Board of Architecture Review has considered this request for exception to the height limitations. The applicant indicated in their master sign plan the location of the tenant size that would exceed the height. So the BAR has evaluated that sign proposal and has forwarded to City Council recommendation for approval with the following condition. The lettering on signage above the second story shall be constructed of individual amounted brass and gold colored lettering. In conclusion then, the applicant's proposal, as it has been evaluated against the criteria and the city code, is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, meets the purpose of the sign code for signage that is adequate and not excessive, provides signage that is compatible with the architecture of the principal use and request the minimum relief necessary. Therefore, staff's recommendation is for approval of the applicant's request subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall ensure that signage for old town villages consistent with the approved master sign plan dated June 8, 2007 and as modified by the recommendations of the Board of Architecture Review. And the City Council was provided this evening with an amended motion that incorporates the actual language from the Board of Architecture Reviews approval. And that would be to add the lettering individual letters and either gold or brass as part of this condition. And the second condition recommended by staff is that the applicant ensure that all other signage complies with the standards of the city code, unless special exceptions of course are granted by the city council. That concludes staff's presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Questions, staff, Mr. Greenfield? Thank you. Because this is in the old town district, is it our code requirement that each individual tenant within the old town village would have to go back through the BAR for sign approval? They would not go through the BAR. They would receive an administrative approval by the BAR staff based on having already approved a master plan. So the master plan sets the parameters for all the tenant signage and the tenants will be provided a copy of the master plan. So it's essentially a city staff administrative, right? The staff person assigned to the BAR, but as a city staff person that is doing an administrative approval. Correct. Okay, I just didn't want to complicate things by having them go back through the BIR every single time. Because I thought that was one of the objectives that we tried to get to be for about streamlining some of these. Absolutely. When they go through this city staff for the administrative approval, let's park it. Thank you. This cross. Is there any reference or is it intended that the materials from which a sign is constructed should be part of this package? That's actually part of the administrative approval process. The depending on the particular tenant and the type of sign that will dictate to some extent the type of materials. The signage, however, is also constrained or regulated by the design guidelines for old town bill, sorry, for the old town historic and transition overlay districts. So we do have some design guidelines on signage that the staff person would have to adhere to as they administered the master sign plan. So the provisions that for natural materials and lettering with serifs and all of that is provided within the framework of the administrative review. That's correct. Okay. And I had a question and I forgot in Frank Lee since my date. I found a lot of things but on the window signage it says that the sign shall not exceed 50% of the maximum signage for me that for any particular tenant. Does that mean that window sign can take up 50% of the available window space? I'd have to double check, but there are requirements or limitations on the amount of space. I believe it's 50% of each pane, but I could go back and double check these pity code points. That seems a lot to me in some cases. What they're proposing is not any different from what could be permitted by right, in other words, they're just articulating very clearly that they will follow the window signage regulations that are already in place and are not asking for any exception to that. All right, so I can be assured that what is here in their plan meets the city's guidelines. Yes, please. The BAR cannot approve something. It's not permitted by the city code. Only the city council can do that. So what's before you tonight is only, as it relates to the height of these signs for the office users. And the material that's been, you had asked a question about material. The material that's been specified by the applicant is brass. So there will be non-aluminated brass letters no more than, I believe, 16 to 18 inches tall. There'll be very discrete signs, but a sign is that it's necessary to identify the major tenets of each of these buildings. So. Thank you. The other question I had, and maybe this comes under that category. I don't know. But in pertaining to the banners, the tall, then banners that are illustrated in their plan, concerns me a little bit that we're not going to have a uniform look throughout the old town area and how can we count how can we provide I mean I can understand for special occasions that sort of thing that they might you know want their own banners but for the 4th of July or fall for the book or any other time that we put banners on the streets, I would like to be able to know that we can consolidate this area and have them conform that there is a provision in the master sign plan and it's Towards the back of I believe the text and I can find the exact page for you But it does address the banner signs that could be Installed it based on the city's approval and and let me clarify there are two types of signs that we're talking about. There's the blade sign which is in essence sticks out from the building on a bit of an arm that would advertise a business. That's different from the actual large banners. Now the master sign plan does show banners on the light poles on the street. That's just a conceptual representation because certainly those lamp poles don't represent our gas lights. They're much taller in the sign plan than our actual gas lights. So those are not banners that would be, we wouldn't place banners on those gas lights, but there would be an opportunity in cooperation with the city to use banners on the building to highlight city events, but it's all very much something that would be in cooperation with the city. It's not something the applicant would be able to do or the management company without the city's approval. So we would have consistency if there was some desire to advertise a city event, either on the exterior of elevations or within the plaza area. So it's your feeling that we should rely on their goodwill to be part of these banners and such that we put up from time to time. I believe that they will benefit from any of the city-sponsored events that would draw potential customers to the downtown area. All right. Mr. Rasmussen. I think you need to push your button there. There you go. Thank you. Could you pull up the building rendering that you started with? And the applicants proposing to put the signage at the orange line that you have. Yes. the applicants proposing to put the signage at the orange line that you have indicated? Was there any thought to giving it to the lower strip across the building between the first and second floors? There was great discussion about that and the feeling is just that the banding, the corners and not really corners, but the architectural detailing at this location would actually crowd the signage. It would just make the signage either so small, it was ineffective, and there just didn't seem to be adequate space in this area, if I believe I'm pointing to the right location to provide the signage there. Okay, thank you. Secondly, have we approved this kind of exception for any other buildings in the city? Yes. In the historic district? In the transition district, yes. Not the historic district, though. Is this in the historic? This is in the transition district. Are you referring to the building on the complex and holy highway? No, I'm thinking specifically of the Fairfax building. It was recently approved and it was actually a box light that was, I think it was a box light that was lit internally lit and projected out these are brass letters. Yes, freedom thing. Right across in the Mosby. This is the one I'm to help And my last question is could you amplify a little bit the the BAR second condition? I'm not sure I understood it That was actually just a clarification of the text the text spoke only to retail and Did not include restaurant tenants and we know that there will be restaurant tenants on the first floor. So that was just a clarification point. Okay, great. Thank you. I just a couple of quick questions. First of all, I have not read the master sign plan. It sounds like it was updated in June. So these questions may be obviously I'm going to ask them anyway. I know we're talking about Mr. Hudson, you shared the brass up above the three and a half foot limit. There is no provision in this master sign where lighted signs, they all have to follow the historic character, the lighted from the ground or there can't be illuminated signs, anything like that? They have to follow the city code, which would restrict illumination within 100 feet of residential, and then there's a secondary restriction within 300 feet. So they're not accepting out of any of the other sign code regulations. I guess what I'm after is this is right across the street and almost surrounded by the historic district. It's in the transition district it sounds like and I just want to make sure we're not doing something so dramatically different. That would be allowed by the new businesses that right across the street are not allowed and we've gone through this before and transitional versus historic district that were granting here that's going to put one set of businesses at a competitive disadvantage from another set of businesses. That's the kind of question I'm trying to go after here. With respect to the lighting, again, I just want to reiterate that that is restricted by the code and so. So it all has to be the wood signs or brass signs that would be illuminated by light shining onto your imagination as opposed to interior illuminated or box signs or something of that nature. I mean this still complies with the design guidelines and the signage recommendations and that design guideline policy. So the master plan, the point of the master plan is to provide a program of signage such that it's a coordinated effort. And so it's not an intention, the intention is not to circumvent what's required by the city code with the exception of this particular request on the location of the tenant signage, of this height, right, exactly. But what makes it the reason this proposal has staff support is that it is the limited amount of, limited usage. It's really intended to advertise the office tenants that would be less likely to have a storefront to advertise their location. And it's a very specific type of sign style as far as the individual letters. Fits with the character, the architecture, the building, and staff believes it fits with the transition and historic distance. I guess the reason I'm asking the question, and we've all heard for the last year about how we're making accommodations for the new businesses that we're not willing to provide to the old existing businesses. And I would be very honest with you, I get confused on transitional overlay versus historic. I'm in a 200-year-old house that's across the street and right across from it, but it's in the historic district. This is in the transition district. We've got businesses all up and down, North Street, which are in the historic district, but not in the transition district. The buildings that are going up on the website, that's in the historic district, I would assume. So, are there any differences in this master plan between the type of signages that would be allowed that are in the historic district between the type of signages that would be allowed that are in the historic district versus the transitional district? Well, the historic district has its own specific, sorry, specific sign regulations. So it actually, the web building, for instance, won't even require a special exception to place signage at the roof line because of the type of building and because of its location in the historic district. This kind of special exception isn't even needed in the historic district, this kind of special exception isn't even needed in the historic district. So the web building doesn't even need the exception. That's right. Because you're saying the size. Because it's in the historic district. The historic district has specific sign regulations that the transition to the district. I understand that, but what I'm trying to get at is visually. And I do not understand the difference between the historic district and the transition district. I just want to make sure that nothing we're doing here tonight is going to create such a competitive disadvantage that every business in the historic district is going to start lining up with that podium starting next week saying if it's good for one, it's got to be good for the other. And I think what I'm hearing you saying is there's really not. I know there's more, there's a lot of restrictions on signage in the historic district. But there's not anything so dramatically different between the historic district and the transition. And I'm asking these because they just simply and I doubt any of us have read the differences in those two ordinances, but in fact they're in the same market. Well, the old town, the design guidelines specifically for the transition district and the historic district with regard to signage, the design guidelines are, in essence, the same. And those are the design guidelines that the BAR uses to evaluate the master sign plan in the transition as a historic district. So the BAR's support of the master sign plan would not be provided if it was not consistent with the design guidelines that apply to everyone else. Okay. The last question I have is on these banners. And I have to be honest with you, I don't understand and I'm a little lary on it. But are you suggesting that these banners can change from week to week, special event to special event? If the center suddenly decides they're going to have a sidewalk weekend, they're going to get 50% off that they'd be able to change those banners and promote that. Because on here it says public event and festival banners and promote that because on here it says public event and festival banners and in the verbiage it basically says public and private. Well, we are actually making a change to that quite honestly. There will be in discussions with the Tremble Co-Rot Representative. We noticed that there was some language that we wanted to improve upon. And that was one of them. So we are actually limiting that to public events, public, special events that would still require the request on the part of the property owner and the approval of the city, of the city management. Yes. I always looked at these banners as a sort of architectural addition to the structures from day one. I never was under the impression that they could change based on the week, the day, the event. And that, to me, would be a huge disservice to this downtown area because they're all color-coordinated. They're all at least in every rendition I've ever seen from day one. I never understood that they could change. And I will be very honest with you. We have a huge problem right now with the developer. They're putting up banners and taking down banners because they're not in compliance every other week. And I get the impression that they're going to push this thing right to the edge, and I want to make sure that this box is built to protect the residential character across the street and the other commercial character that's in the historic district. Sotomayor, you're right. These are not intended to advertise any particular business or any sales event. These are not advertising banners on the sides of the building. And that's a, I'm glad you clarify that. That's not what it says in this document. This document says it would be for public and private and specifically various event merchant events. In the event that the center itself were to host some type of downtown spring event, then they could use those banners to advertise the event. I'll just personally say I think that is not the purpose of what I thought there's banners before. It was an advertising. I thought it was an architectural design component of the development from day one. I did not realize it was a billboard. So okay. Any other questions of the staff? If not, we'll open up the public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up. Let me invite the applicant. Want to address the City Council? Campbell Smith with Tramble Crow Company. I agree with the report if it was was pretty self-explanatory and comprehensive. The only point I'd make is that the point of these special exceptions was and the point of the master sign plan that we worked in detail with the staff was not to get as much signage as we possibly could. It was really to control the signage and place it in places that we felt was architecturally appropriate. Added to the appearance and the attractive appearance of old town Fairfax and the development itself. And also met the requirements of the tenants, specifically the office tenants that would really demand signage and those would be full floor office tenants, 10,000 feet and above. And that was really the intent of the master sign plan and hopefully you'll see when you read it. It was carefully thought out and with that intent. Well, if I could just to follow up and I should have asked this to the staff, I get the part in the office tenants, but this is dressing the retail component as well, is it not? Is this action tonight only on the commercial side? It's only on the office, the height of the office. The rest of this is provided for information. Okay. Do we get a bite of this apple on the retail at some point in time or provide your comments and we'll follow up on them? Well, I'm just sitting here reading the real estate signs, the temporary real estate signs, and it says consult the city zoning regulations for all real estate and leasing sign activity signs. Where would those be? Are these going to be on those banners that are attached to the lamppost and on the side of the buildings? Is that what the intent is? No, those would be temporary banners that you typically see in the city now, but those are not the architectural feature type banners that you that are really meant to enhance the building not to advertise. They're not those vanners are not meant for advertising of anything. Okay, but the vanners that are on page 12 of this document are the same architectural vanners that are on page 13 that talks about the real estate, temporary real estate signs. Is this just a photo that has nothing to do with the verbiage? Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, we actually had discussed with the applicant a notation under that particular image that you're showing to clarify that that was intended to represent public event type signage, helping with that Campbell. I know you and I are going to have another note to clarify. I have it here that says banners will not advertise specific tenants or the Old Town Village Center. And in the language above section 12 public event and festival banners, we have changed the language to essentially limit those to public events. Can be approved by a city. And we're approving that tonight, or is that something that was done outside of this per? I'm getting confused at what we're doing tonight versus what you're testifying on. The master sign plan according to the city code is subject to the approval of the Board of Architectural Review and they took action on that and all these components. We'll approve the master sign plan, the City Council. The Board of Architectural Review did that on June 20th. So we've never seen that document. It's a design document. It does not modify any of the city code regulations. So the remaining signage with the exception of this building, mounted tenant signage, will be consistent with regulations of the code. They will come in and receive sign permits according to what the City Code will allow with respect to Maximums and other limitations. Maximums on the amount of signage and other limitations. The only thing that the City Council is considering tonight is the request to allow the signage at a height greater than 3.5 feet above the second floor. Now, certainly the City Council can, if they choose not to support that, then the applicant is left with signage for office tenants, consistent with what the code allows, but then all other provisions in the match sign plan would be. I understand that. If it's just a commercial, I'll go back and say it again. But half of your presentation in this book that's in front of us has to do with signage in the entire development down in that area. And I'll say it again, this section on real estate signs that is up in front of us. The picture with those signs is the banners that you're talking about, which you're saying has nothing to do with the right on the temporary real estate signs, which I'm now hearing are only going to be if approved for, you know, the interesting part of this is from day one, the City Council made it very clear. It wanted to control the architectural look, the feel of the downtown area. And I'm getting this feeling that those underpinnings are getting pulled out here by some sign master plan that's now going through the B.A.R. that the council is not part of. And I just want to make sure what we're getting sucked into is not this. Tonight is simply the commercial signage. But this is what's been distributed to the community at least. I've already had calls on many of these things. And then the begs the question outside of this, when does the council get the comment on? What's in this document? And it makes me very uneasy. This is something being negotiated between the city staff and the applicant, and we're not part of that, but it's going to have a substantial impact on what the in-product looks like to the community on this project. That soapbox may be for a different issue in a different time and a different comment, and I certainly would give that. But maybe the other thing I needed to clarify more in the presentation also is that the master sign plan that you have in front of you shows possible locations and possible amounts of signage. It's not intended to say that every place that there is, for instance, a shaded triangle that that will be signage. That's just a possible location. The signage will never exceed the maximum that is currently permitted by the code. Okay, but this is not the city's sign plan. This is the developer sign plan that you've provided us tonight, right? Yes, that's their proposal. Okay, we're not hearing this tonight, because there's nothing to do with it. It just was, I guess I'm confused is with my packet is this. I've tied those two together and I believe many of us sitting on this dius have tied those two together. If you can untie him for us, that probably makes this process much easier and a lot less painful. I think the only thing I can probably say is that the sign plan in your hand, the booklet, the master sign plan, shows where the signage being considered for special exception will be located. Master sign plan by the applicant, not the master sign plan that you've been referring to by the BAR. That's the one that the BAR reviewed. Mr. Greenfield. Elk for making things works here. This is what you plan to distribute to every one of your tenants. Yes, that's right. So, for example, if you're on page 14 and you were looking at an eating slash drinking establishment menu display sign, it gives you four things that you need to do before you would be able to put those signs on the window or in the building or whatever it might be in additional requirements. It would need to occur I.E. Additional City approvals that would need to occur before they can even do that is that correct? Yes, that's correct. The combination of this document together with the elevations that show the actual buildings and sign locations would be distributed to the tenants and they would also include requirements if there are any for them to get city approval or VIR approval? I would have to agree with the mayor. I think it would be the waters a little bit light by putting this in here and then we're looking at something on our screens up here that is the special exception for the building mounted signage because it exceeds the height requirement to be placed on the building. That's kind of muddy this. I mean, I agree with what the mayor said in that, we're trying to get this to be as best we can, recognizing that you have a transition overlay district, you have an old town district, that you're trying to get this to be as seamless as possible. I mean, you planted a new building in the middle of a lot of older buildings, and we've tried from day one back from when we first went into this process in 1998 or even beyond that, to try to get this fit in with the downtown. One of those things that I think we've always been concerned about is the signage in trying to make sure that that fits in and I agree. You know, these banners, I happen to like them. You go to a number of different cities, and you see them on the white holes. I would hope whatever happens here is consistent with what we're putting up in the rest of the downtown. I think what I'm hearing you say is, even though this is for illustrative purposes only, it's led many of us to feel that that's what you plan to do in different locations and what I think I'm hearing is that's not necessarily true. So I'm just trying to, I think all of us are trying to grapple with this and the special exception and the placement of the signs for on the chain bridge road only. All of those issues are kind of thrown together here and it seems like it's complicated things. Okay, any other questions in the applicant? Hearing none, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up with anybody address the city council this Peterson. Good evening. This is my first time in your new digs. They're really cool. I'm Mary Peterson 3936. This is home sweet home ground zero for my husband and me for 41 years. We live across the street from this from the building at 3955. Chain Bridge Road and the the description of the public hearing mentions the North Street side, the university drive Side and Chain Bridge, one of the unique things about the Chain Bridge Road elevation that is we are residentially zoned. And as you go down Chain Bridge, that's a historic neighborhood. We happen to be because our house is only, I think, 70 years old. We're a non-contributing element described as a ranch house. I'm sorry to say but it is in a historic district. So I really appreciate the care that you're giving to this because for a couple of reasons it's across from my house. Second that it's critical as we go down chain bridge and we get then to the residential project that will go in on the library site that we have something not that's just satisfactory for John and me to look at, but that will be a credit for the whole city and that will provide a wonderful unified flow. So I've been thinking about the signage and I don't as I talk to Mr. Hudson about it and he told me not to freak out. I think of the ins of court maybe. He was under control. The ins of court as a model for example. I think that's a very nicely done development in the signs or the sizes, their in character. And I think I'm assured that this is what we will be looking at. And believe me, it has taken a lot of faith the past couple of years to deal with downtown redevelopment from our perspective. It's been pile drivers at three in the morning. Our driveways blocked just about anything you can imagine. And we've kept the faith. We are very hopeful that this new development will be a credit to all of us. We're very excited about the new library. Doesn't it look great? And I think it's going to be, things are coming together, but the devil is in the details. And I think this will be a very critical part of what you do is the whole issue of signage. On one question that I have, I noticed, and this is an urban building with urban frontage across from us. But I don't have not seen any provision for street trees in front of that office building or for plantings of any kind. Now maybe they're going to rely on potted plants. But I definitely think this is an issue. I don't know what it was provided for where the approvals lie, but we've sacrificed a certain amount of greenery. I'm fine with the idea that it's an urban setting and comes right up to the sidewalk, but I do think it's important that you look at some kind of green relief here. So, David, can you tell Mr. Hudson, excuse me. Can you tell me what we're looking at here? Street trees. What? Street trees. Street trees. Okay, you're going to be pile drivers taking holes in the sidewalk to install. Not before 10 p.m. Not before 10 p.m. Only after 10 p.m. Just before 10 p.m. Only after 10 p.m. Just a little like you very much. I'd be glad to share the plans with you. Okay. We're on the site plans. All right. I think that's important. But I thank you as always for your service. And we're looking forward to completion of a great project with the kinds of oversight that you all are giving. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council on this item? Mr. O'Dell. Jerry O'Dell. I appreciate the mayor's comments about treating the old and the new businesses equitably in this issue. Another comment. If you can't stand the heat, what do they say to do? Get out of the kitchen. Or if you can't hit a fastball in fear that a fast one is about to be pulled off on you, you might want to just defer this matter, or even if you really get irritated enough, reject it outright. The, I would urge you to strictly enforce the code or whatever you call it, the regulations for downtown. If there's any one part of the town that you don't want to be taken liberties with the regulations as you customarily do at every opportunity, this would be the place to stand firm to draw the line in the sand or on the building at the level that the line was drawn on the graph, not allowing the sign to be higher. It's true that signs are the lifeblood of businesses advertising help, seem, fish is a name so that people become familiar with businesses and therefore frequent it in the business succeeds and draws higher revenues, which generate greater taxes to the city. But you still need not to play games, not to yield in this matter. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council? Yes, please. I would just like to clarify again and hopefully this helps you distinguish between what's up for consideration tonight and what's not. Everything in the master sign plan again that was considered by the BAR does comply with city code and we worked closely with staff to double check that. With the exception of the commercial signage above the second story level. And so that's, again, our intent is not to ask for any special exceptions other than what we feel is architecturally appropriate and avoids the clutter with the retail signage below. Okay, we're now closed to public hearing, entertain a motion. Mayor. This is crossed. I move that the City Council adopt the attached resolution with conditions. Approving the request of CHReality 3, Old Town Village LLC, IKRS Old Town Incorporated Agent, pursuant to City Code Section 110-185, for a special exception to City Code Section 110-180-B2-B4 to allow building mounted tenet signs at a height greater than 3.5 feet above the finished floor level of the second story at 3950 University Drive and 3955 and 3925 Chamberich Road and 10 420 North Street and more particularly described as tax map parcel 5710243-00A with the following conditions. One, the applicant shall ensure that signage for old town villages consistent with the approved master sign plan dated June 8, 2007, and is modified by the recommendations of the Board of Architecture Review to require that lettering on signage above the second story shall be constructed of individually mounted brass or gold colored lettering. 2. The applicant shall ensure that all signage complies with the standards of the city code unless special exceptions are granted by City Council. 2. Council. Second. Moved by Miss Cross, seconded by Mr. Greenfield, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Opposed? And a passed unanimously. That now brings us to item number 7C, a public hearing council action and appropriation resolution in the amount of $4 million for acquisition of the 11 Oaks school property located at 10515 school street. The purchase of the 11 Oaks properties required to enable the city to complete the George Mason Boulevard project. Is it improperly advertised? Yes. Staff report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. This item, this resolution relates to the appropriation of $4 million for the purchase of 11 out of school property located at 10515 schools street. The purpose of this acquisition is to complete the Fairfax or the George Mason Boulevard Road Project, which will connect the university drive and Armstrong Street intersection to George Mason University. The financing for this project has already taken, I'm sorry, the purchase of this property has been approved and will take place for his plan to take place tomorrow morning. The financing for the property is planned to take place in July. Staff recommends that that council adopt the appropriation resolution in the amount of $4 million so we can continue with the closing of tomorrow morning. Well, and the only thing I want to just somewhat clarify if I can is this action is not being taken to complete George Mason Boulevard. The deal was already in place between the city and the county to purchase the property to allow the road to be finished. This this action at least to my viewpoint is really being taken to purchase the entire site so that the city can control its first future used to make sure that it's compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. It just so happens that that action makes it a little simpler and maybe even a little cheaper first to purchase it all together for the road. But it wasn't, I know there's some confusion in the community. It wasn't the sole reason for purchasing. It's my understanding, and I think it's consistent with the actions of counsel that if this action gets approved, well, used the land we need to finish the road, but then we will put the property back on the market, but we will then be able to control its future uses opposed to uses that were being contemplated by either the Fairfax County School System or others. So I just want to make that clarification. That is correct. Okay. Any questions or staff? Very now we'll open up the public hearing and we actually have two individuals that have signed up. Lauren, a crimson? Please? Please. Good evening, Mayor Council. Unfortunately we're here again and I have to lay my name is Lauren Crenman. I live at 42 16 Troll Bridge Street. It's a Cresmont community. We've worked very closely with Council over the last 13 years to address the George Mason Boulevard issue. I will say that this announcement tonight that there was even a hearing on the resolution was not really proper to our community in an announcement such as which I know you were just clarifying that this would affect the completion of George Mason Boulevard, although in all the documentation it does show that this acquisition is the final piece for the Boulevard to be completed. And I think that still raises a lot of questions with our community and the transparency of having a public hearing to address one more time, unfortunately, the purpose of George Mason Boulevard. At this stage, this $4 million, my understanding was never considered as part of the deal for George Mason Boulevard. My understanding was the county was preferring a right of way also with conditions to relocate their buses and for the road to be completed all the way up through to the university. There was a lot of discussion on 2.4 million dollars being expended which was state funding for this road. And there was a lot of opposition and council was divided many times on whether to even spend that money. To see today, and actually we found this today, $4 million out of city funding going now to purchase the school building, which I don't understand what the school building will be used for other than I know the county just refurbished it with $2 million and now we're spending $4 million which I expect that it'll be raised and paved over to put the road through if there's parcels on it that are going to be used for development and through. If there's parcels on it that are going to be used for development and that's going to be a public hearing, June 10th is a public hearing I just understood tonight that will be on part of this. So this is all very, very disruptive I think to counsel and to our community. We would like to oppose tonight any further movement of any funding To support this purchase of the school until there's some clarification exactly what is gonna happen With all respect I think there is confusion tonight on how this is gonna be transpired and I would hate to see a purchase contact track go through tomorrow where we're at the $11 right now and then our community come in on June July 10th and say we really weren't given an opportunity to come in and understand what that purchase meant. And I think the City of Fairfax should be really upset that $4 million is being proposed that no one understands where it came from. For the record I only see is that Mr. Greenfield on February 27th at 1015 at night at a council session, and I have it in the minutes, shows that there was this move to direct the manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement between the city effects, Fairfax as purchaser and the Fairfax County School Board as seller for property owned by the seller and located at 10515 school street. They did terms and conditions outlined by the city attorney and the city manager in a closed meeting. Now a closed meeting had no transparency that I know to our community. Our community has been working very closely with you all. In fact, the most disappointing part of this is we worked very closely on the road for a wall issue because the road had failed to environmental assessment evaluations. We were told very upfront that the city would work with us on noise abatement. But then it came to a funding issue of $275,000 that was actually in September denied to us. in $75,000 that was actually in September denied to us. Saying that the city didn't have the funding, V.Needed to come up with it. V.N came up with it. Then another hearing happened November 28,06. Again, Council decided that there was going to be no wall, that money was going to be held in a bayonet because Council did not feel there was going to be a negative impact to Cresma by this road. And that the assessment would be deferred till two years after GMU was finalized, the bullet part. There was no statement that night indicating at all that there was any purchase potential of anything further that needed to be done other than some minor drainage. Mr. Venetiano is not here tonight. He was following this very closely. I know that Mr. Mayor, you are very tactful in trying to keep abreast of how this was going. I do know you didn't support the road to begin with. I'm really disappointed that we're at this stage now with $2.4 million plus $4 million plus the county putting $2 million into a building that now probably that will be destroyed. But we're talking $8 million, almost of funding, that I really think we need to have some justification. We're all working very hard, we're paying high taxes. Our quality of life is important to us, and the purpose of this road has never been clarified. So with all respect, I really would ask that you not go on this for a million tonight, and that this purchase not go through tomorrow until we have some more discussion. Appreciate your time. Well, and thank you for for bringing your comments to our attention. And let me just say because I do think this is very important and I'm going to take full blame on what I think is creating confusion in this issue that quite frankly I didn't understand until your comments tonight and I take full blame for the verbites that's in the agenda which talks about that we're doing this to make George Mason-Bullabarter reality. That is just, it's not the reason we're taking this motion of you. Give me two seconds, let me provide and for those in the room, the benefit of it. And I'm going to go back in time. I don't know, Mr. Sissin, probably a year or so ago, probably was longer, but I'll use that as a point in time. We were contacted, or we had heard from the Fairfax County Public School System who owns this property, that they were considering using the property for an alternative education use that we did, we felt strongly did not belong in the residential community that surrounded that we did not think was consistent with the residential community and we were significantly concerned about that aspect had nothing to do with the road. It had to do with the use of the Fairfax County School System potentially had for this building, which was declared a surplus building by the schools and they were selling off all their surplus buildings. Quite frankly, the City Council stepped into the middle of that process. It was a very, I think, bold discussion, but it was done solely to protect the residential character of the community. Again, I wanted to stress it had nothing to do with the road. I know your viewpoints in the road. We share some of those viewpoints. We differ on some of those viewpoints. But this action is not the deal on the road has been cut. It's been in place for some time. The financial arrangements were discussed. But what happened is when the council became significantly concerned about the future use in place for some time, the financial arrangements were discussed. But what happened is when the council became significantly concerned about the future use of this project, which would be controlled by the county, only 30% of this land is actually in the city. 70% is in the county. We decided it was of significant concern to buy the property, it was the only way to get out in front of this issue and dialogue, and I complement the school board for allowing us to do that with the intent that the city will then put the market, this property on the market minus the section for the road for residential redevelopment. I will just tell you that this is something I believe personally that the communities should applaud and be 100% behind because what it's intending to do is to protect the residential character of school street and Cresmont and all the other surrounding residential green acres from a very different direction that was about to take place. The only reason these two pieces have got connected with the road is we'd already cut the deal for the right away on the road. Now we're going to purchase the whole rest of the property. So instead of writing two checks, it all got incorporated into one check at one time. But I would just, and I understand exactly why we've created some confusion here. And as I said, I'll take certainly full blame for that. But that's not the intent of the action. The action to purchase the property has nothing to do with the reality of George Mason Boulevard. Won't impact it in any way, shape, or form good or bad. It's to take the property out of the control of the Fairfax County school system in Fairfax County, and put it in the control of the city of Fairfax so that we can control the future redevelopment because that property will be redeveloped that's consistent with the residential community that surrounds it because as I said, 70% in the county, which would be not be governed by our ordinances and 30% in the city. So that's the reason for the action tonight. I understand why the two have been connected. That's not the intent of tonight's action. Just also for clarification, and I'm sorry, the hearing that she's referring to on July 10th, what is that? Is there a hearing coming up on the tent that's connected to the road? Is that? There is a, that is going forward with the financing portion. For the road. Or the, it's actually the fine. Or the four million dollar. By the park. Okay. So just so you understand, because this gets very confusing, is once the Council approves the appropriation resolution, then we have to take another act to actually authorize the funding and the financing for it. So that's the reason for the two. One is to buy the property for 4 million. Again, to attach from George Mason Boulevard, the second action on the 10th of July is to approve the financing for the 4 million. So there's two separate steps here. But the intent, and I just want to say it again, is for the city now that it controls the property, to put the property back in the market, recoup our $4 million at least at a minimum, and then ensure that whatever gets redeveloped, there would be consistent with the surrounding residential community, because that is not the direction it was taking. And I would imagine that at the time that that land gets developed, then there would be a land use public hearing just to and both to stand the county public input into the consistency to say exactly what you're saying. Absolutely. So this age, I mean basically striking this from the resolutions is probably I mean formally should be done because I think it's going to cause a lot of the. The full of argument. Yeah, portion of. The statement there, yes. Because it's on both resolutions. And I would just say, and I take full blame for it, I reviewed the agenda, I did not catch the verb, which in what the message that was sending, quite frankly, to the community. We certainly, there was no action here to get the communities stirred up again. It was actually to further support the community, ensure the future redevelopment that's mostly in the county, but surrounded by the city would be consistent with the community and not a different direction, which is where it was headed. Okay, so it was a fall strike. We'll give you, thank goodness. We're sorry, we got you all worked up again on the boulevard, but that was not the antenna tonight, actually. Okay, all right. Okay, we accept your apology. Okay. Thank you. You're clarification. Thank you. Well, apologies. Good to. I certainly do that. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Nobody. Yes. Chris Scott, please. Good evening. I think my thunders been effectively stolen by yourself, Mayor and Council and the previous speaker. But I'm at 4131 Trobert Street, obviously a resident of Cresmont and the primary reason that I would be here was the concern of over the road. So, but I guess I just would now that I'm here and I would like to maybe bring up two points that maybe have some relevance and hopefully the council would consider in future thoughts as you go forth with the George Mason Boulevard plans. Mr. Silverthorn, I thought very succinctly and eloquently brought up that the point of council feeling call here. The point of council is to strike a balance between I think, you know, effectively moving the city forward and protecting what needs protected. And I would ask that council, you know, take that into consideration. You know, speakers before me that I've said they've lived here for 40 years. I've lived here with my wife for a year and a half. I look forward to maybe saying someday that we've been here for 40 years. I've lived here with my wife for a year and a half. I look forward to maybe saying someday that we've been here for 40 years. But I guess in my understanding, there were a couple of different reasons for why the road has gone through. And I would just ask that as the council continues to work through that, that they consider that balance between improving traffic flow to George Mason University, but also balancing that with the safety, the concerns of our neighborhood. And I would also, I guess the understanding, the other understanding that I had was, there was a promise made to previous residents as to why University Boulevard was going to be closed. previous residents as to why university bill of art was going to be closed. I would ask that council also remember their promise to our community and the community at large that a sound or a safety barrier was going to be erected. In particular, certain council members brought to the attention, I guess, of the greater council, that there were insufficient funds. And if the state were to match that safety wall would be erected and the still on hold the state did match those funds. So I would ask that certain members of council that have had what I would call selective amnesia that they would recollect that. I'm not a doctor but I do find that interesting that certain members can forget things that were testified before it. And certain members can remember the number of parking spaces where shopping carts occupied them. But yet forget promises that were made in terms of the safety of the neighborhood in particular. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Espasa. of the safety of the neighborhood in particular. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Aspassa. I've sat up here for a gush. I guess 18 years and I don't remember a promise being made to build a sound wall. Maybe some individual members of council made promises to build sound, but I don't remember the council as a body. Am I wrong? Did we as a body promise to build a sound wall? Am I wrong? Did we as a body promise to build a soundball? Thank you. Anybody say yes? I don't recall. Thank you for the promise. Okay. Nobody else is previously signed up. Would anybody like to address the City Council on this item? Mr. Adele? I'm sorry, Dahl. Cheerio, Dahl. I particularly enjoyed the previous two immediate prior presentations. I got the woman's name, but even though the mayor was able to let us say rebut much of what she said, I think she should give serious consideration given her propensity to do research and articulate it well. Running for the council, we need some new blood up there. Now, I think Mr. Rasmussen is correct. No promise was made by the Council to build a barrier. And one thing I would like you to do is make a condition if it can be incorporated into this item that no barrier will be built for at least two years and no discussion of it for at least one year so that you've had adequate time to see what the sound impact is once the bullet bar is opened and has been open to students at GMU and others for at least one school year and the rest of the calendar year. So there's an adequate body of evidence to use for your assessment. I have written the skivings about reimbursing the county for the improvements of what was a 200 to make 2.4 million dollars or whatever. That just seems totally illogical for them to renovate a building that they know they're going to be if they knew that they're going to be selling to us. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council on this item? Hearing none, we will close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Westminster. Mr. Westminster adopted appropriation. I'm listening to the amount of $4 million for the purchase of the 11 oak school property located at 105, 1.5 school street, perplex for duty. Second. Moved by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mrs. Cross, any discussion? Mr. Sofman. Mr. Sofman. One point of clarification. I do want to just make sure that we are doing what we need to do with the community association's leadership, in particular, I'm assuming all that's been that boxed and checked, but I feel like once again, and as much as we've discussed this issue for 16 of the 18 years at Mr. Ress Muster and I have served on this body together, that there just seems, and we heard it on the Stafford Park issue as well, there just never seems to be enough out reached no matter how much we do. Aside from legal requirements, but also just in terms of reaching out to the civic leaders in those communities, I think is also very important. Just want to make sure we do that. And then also, clearly there are, and I appreciate the balance question coming back up or comment coming back up. I do hope that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this discussion is coming back yet again after 16 years. And it's inconscionable in my mind and I've said this before that we are still where we are or not where we need to be in my opinion. But I've also tried to strike that balance by supporting two lanes instead of four lanes. I've tried to strike that balance by supporting sound walls versus no sound walls. So I think my comments have been on the mark on that are my position, but this is still one that needs some tinkering on the part of this body and look forward to active community engagement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Overturene. And I'm a screen for a place. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I too want to speak on this issue because I've been accused by a new city resident. I appreciate that for having amnesia. I don't have amnesia. It is my job to sit here and analyze every single issue that comes before me and I have provided myself in doing my homework. So if I'm going to go out and improve something that has long lasting impacts whether it's a shopping center or it's a bank or anything else, it's my job as your elected representative to go out into the community and look at what that issue is and look at that impact and listen to those residents. I've always done that. Speaking of that, and to that end, I have continued to work with representatives of your Homeowners Association, meeting with them on a number of occasions on the issue of the sound wall, and trying to come up with what that best balance is and what the best course of action is to approve, to work with my colleagues who have had concerns, I've had concerns that we're trying to build a wall before we have a road finished. We're trying to put in stoplights before we have a road finished. All I've ever said was, let's get the road finished and analyze exactly what the needs are because we might put in a brick wall when that's not necessary. Your Civic, your Homeowner Association board agreed with that and came back to this body. The two representatives assigned to talk on that issue agreed with that. Took it to your board. They agreed that we would sit back and we would wait until we maybe they weren't. It was reluctantly but thought that maybe that isn't a bad idea to get the road approved, to get it built, then look at what the impacts are. So that's where we've, we've approached this. Whether you were bored is informed you of all that, and I'll certainly go back to my notes of who the individuals were that I met with. But I have always tried to keep an open mind and tried to do my business as I think is most appropriate. So I don't have amnesia on this issue. I've worked actually very hard on this issue. It's unfortunate that the public hearing and the description for this has combined completing George Mason Boulevard and buying 11 Oaks because it's the mayor correctly pointed out. We were moving forward with George Mason Boulevard, whether we bought 11 oaks or not. The issue was an easement versus buying the entire property for different reasons. So I appreciate you coming tonight and keeping us in check, but I will continue to work with your community to try to do what I think is best not only for your community, but keeping in mind that all the taxpayers that have to deal with paying for that as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Greenfield. And maybe let me just conclude this part of it by this city council to protect the residential community and the surrounding communities against future uses and developments. The city would have had no control over. This gives us complete control over. Certainly appreciate our colleagues in the Fairlinks County School Board who have worked so closely Mr. Sissin with you and legal council and dialogue and discussion to get this a reality. And I just want to say, let's not overlook that step. I mean, anytime you work together with jurisdiction and more than one jurisdiction is involved, it's a very difficult process. I see one of the staff from Fairfax County here in the audience and we're about to talk about the Northern Virginia Regional Transportation Authority in a few minutes but it's quite a testament I think to the relationship in both Fairfax County school system and Fairfax County board that we were able to pull this off because it was not easy. It actually had to go through a public hearing of Fairfax County school board. It had to go through a public hearing and board action from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors at one point in time this project got linked to a totally different project and a totally different side of the world and the city of Fairfax that we were able to separate in the 11th hour. And I just want to say I applaud the members of Council and the staff for sticking in this issue and be willing to make which is a very bold action and it's an action quite frankly in this case to invest in the residential community and to protect that community. It's a little bit of a gamble. It's a very aggressive move but the end of it all works out the way we hope to is we'll sell the property and will be consistent with the surrounding residential community, we will control that process as opposed to have that process controlled by others and we'll get all the money back that we paid for the property in a fairly short order. Mr. Sisson, I also just wanted to clarify one other point. I thought I remembered both from the Fairfax County School Board side and from your staff side that we distribute it letters to the community. I haven't read those letters in a long time, but I don't think those letters justified the purchase of the property to George Mason Boulevard, did it? It was more of what we were intending to do with the property in the bigger pictures. Yes, and okay. That's probably why the letters didn't create the same sort of intensity that may be the agenda. And as I said, that certainly falls into my area responsibility. I just did not catch it until I read it out loud tonight. Soon as I read it out loud, I understood why we were probably about to have the conversations that we had. So with that, if there aren't any other discussions, all in, do we have a motion on the forecredit? Yeah, all in favor of the motion is signified by voting aye. Opposed and a passed unanimous. That now brings us to agenda item number 7D, which is a public hearing and council action and appropriation resolution in the amount of 400,000 to fund increased costs and proposed additions to City Hall renovation project relating to a spestus removal. When do replacements exterior painting, major maintenance to the front-inch and steps into the replacement of the flagpoles? Has this been properly advertised? This is one painful process. It seems like we have had to approve and talk about this about 16 times to get to this point at 16 years. That's a good thing. Yeah, exactly. So, Mr. Sissin with that, I know we've discussed this quite frequently but staff report Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This does a firm previous council decision The City Hall project had some additional work to be done plus There are other needs to the building. They're not part of the renovation that would be scheduled for several years down the road and we thought we would that would be scheduled for several years down the road and we thought we would disrupt the environment only one time and recommend to you that we do all this work at one time. And so, Councilor, was kind enough to provide that additional funding and this action to set forth the appropriation for that work to get underway. Any questions or staff? Yes, ma'am. Any of this money goes towards technological advances for these council members? So they work? Let that come in. That was a rhetorical address. Okay. There's some public hearing. I think I've already asked this from property advertised. Nobody has previously signed up to address the City Council on this item. Would anybody like to address the City Council? Very none. We'll close the public hearing on our team of motion. Mr. Mayor. Ms. Cross. I moved to adopt an appropriation resolution in the amount of $400,000 to fund increased costs and proposed additions to the City Hall renovation project relating to a spestus removal window replacement exterior painting major maintenance to the front entrance steps and replacement of the flag pool. Suck it. Moved by Miss Cross, seconded by Miss Silverthorn in any discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Seconded by Ms. Silverthorn in any discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Opposed? Opposed? It's passionandously. Item number 70 is a public hearing council action or ordinance of mending pertaining to the imposition of a courthouse security fee. Public advertised staff report. Very briefly and this is the highlight of the evening. The General Assembly has authorized an increase in the fee that the city can charge for courthouse security fee from $5 to $10. In order to accomplish this, we need to amend the city code. That's what's before you. Let's debate it. I'm kidding. Any questions and staff. This is a public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up. Would anybody like to address the issue? Oh, sorry. Mr. Adele. Jerry O'Dell, you may not have been aware of this so I get my exercise coming up to the podium. That's why it comes so frequently Important to stay sure by your exercise by the I have one actually Donate one I would just ask that you make sure that there exists what I suspect does namely provision that this Security fee is assessed only against people who plead or are convicted. Plead guilty or are convicted. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council on this item? Harry Nahn will entertain close to public hearing, entertain a motion. Best green fill. Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt an ordinance amendment chapter 26 of the COVID and the City of Fairfax, Virginia by amending and reenacting section 26-4, pertaining to Court House Security, please. Thank you. Through by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Sereuthorn, any discussion? I'll in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? The passed unanimously. Public hearing and council action and ordinance,itting the city code pertaining the use of photo monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals. Has this been properly advertised? Yes. Staff report, please. Mr. Mayor, members of council with the leadership of the discovering body, the state of Virginia did allow for the reestablishment of the photo red traffic enforcement program to be in effect July 1, 2007. The content of the ordinance that's before you this evening contains the elements of the new law that cities are under and they are more extensive than in the past. It will cause somewhat of a delay in getting underway with this program effective July 1, none of the Northern Virginia jurisdictions will be able to meet that date, but just as soon as possible, we will be underway with that program once again. Once again. Question for everybody. Mr. Sissan, I know I asked this at the end of the meeting recently, but can you, I rewatched your comments, and I want to make sure I understood them in terms of competitive bidding because several of us have received letters, at least I have an insuring that the process is an open process from companies based in Virginia or elsewhere to bid on this equipment. And I think you said in response to me, but I want to understand this, that we may either do our own or we may partner with other jurisdictions, is that correct in order for Virginia to get the best? What do you have a preferred approach at this point, or is this really open? We do not, but regardless of the approach taken, it will be a competitively good situation. Open to all. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. This is a line. I'd like to just clarify to you, Mr. Assistant, if I could. You know, in this first came task and we knew this was coming around, there were going to be only like three intersections or two intersections that we could use. These lights at and we were going to rotate them around throughout the city for. Now, is it only three or are now we have ten or twelve or every intersection can have that right this ordinance allows the city to have ten The city in fact is able to have ten. I think we have eight cameras now We'll be looking at getting a full complement. Okay, so are we adding stoplights from when we did it the last time? Well, there's more than we had before since we had eight before Okay, okay, well you know if they were last time. Well, there's more than we had before. Since we had eight before, we held it in. I don't know if they were spares, Mr. Silverthorn. Thank you, Mr. Sisson. Ah-ha. Okay. Is any of the questions this staff? Mr. Greenfield, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Following on that, it is different though from the previous letters. I agree with that. Because we had the ability to have 25 sections while you're done the city of Fairbanks. This legislation only allows us to have 10. The other thing I would ask Mr. Sissin, this legislation also requires that the intersections, even though we've done them previously, those have to be submitted to V.Nouth for approval before we're able to start monitoring those intersections after July 1. And I know that it will be several months before we're able to start monitoring at those intersections after July 1. And I know that it will be several months before we would start that. Have we sent those intersections to v.4 approval at this point or not yet? No, we have not. We're still analyzing data and taking the steps that we have to take before we select our intersections. Then at some point we will. Okay. Great. Thank you. I would also say that the V.Gaid lines have not been promulgated yet, which we much must match up. Okay. Okay, we will now open the public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up to address the council and anybody likes to address the city council in this manner. Mr. O'Dell. I'll even deliver the exercise equipment. You better take this deal while you can. That's a pretty good deal. The two points here. Why limited to 10 intersections? Will you publish the list of the intersections? Will you change the locations as you did in the past when they were authorized? Can we agree there will be no revenue sharing with the manufacturer, no kickback, no commissions, no percentage? Arrows is a rose by whatever name it goes and so is a pickpamp. I think it just smells to someplace. I have entered wherever that there is that sort of provision I hear by way of scuttle that I didn't read it here. I like the general language here. Time doesn't permit to say why and how. Anybody else to dress city Council on this item? Very now we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Greenfield. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to adopt an ordinance amendment chapter 98, Article 1, section 98-21 of the code of the City of Verifax. Virginia pertaining to the use of photo monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals. Second. Move by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Ms. Cross. All any discussion? It's nice, Mr. Mayor, to be able to finally have this back as a tool for us to use to reduce red light running here in the city for our backs, unfortunately. It took a while and a lot of effort on the part of our city staff as well as our legislators to work this through. It is a proven tool and I'm glad that we have it back at our disposal. Mayor, Mr. Everything. I just want to concur Mr. Reefield's comments and also thank our legislators in particular who fought very hard for this over the last several years to get this reinstated. I should also mention that one of the most interesting things about the fiscal impact here reinstated. I should also mention that one of the most interesting things about the fiscal impact here is that we're calculating, you know, basically breaking even and I'm going to word this carefully because Mr. O'Dell always captures my comments and and repeats them to me, but my ultra conservative friends of whom I have many by the way say to me that they that this is only big brother and an attempt attempt to get as much revenue as we possibly can. This is not the impact. In fact, we did our first couple of years make a lot of money on this project. But then the revenue dwindled dramatically because it changed behavior. That's the bottom line. People, you know, whether they know where the lights are or not, people change or drive behavior. This works. It's a great policy and I'm just pleased that we can re-institute it. Thank you. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed to pass unanimously. Public hearing and council guidance regarding the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority working group recommendations and in particular the proposed taxes and fees to be enacted by the NBTA. Has this been properly advertised? Yes. Thank you. I assume Mr. Vrsoce, you've moved to the table or turned it over to staff. The one thing I would ask and I know we have a lot of information out here, but probably for the purposes of this discussion we ought to focus on the proposed taxes. There's an awful lot of information and all the staff reports and technical reports. And certainly we make sure that you all have that as we go on. But for tonight's public hearing, I would try to eliminate to the tax portion of it. So, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. And that is our intent. We did give quite a bit of information out because there is a lot involved. So we want to give everyone an opportunity to get all the background, but we do plan on focusing on the seven proposed fees and taxes that may be adopted by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, as it was approved or as HB3202, the Transportation Bill was approved on April 4, 2007. The purpose of our, of this presentation or of this public hearing is to give the council opportunity to discuss and consider the seven fees and taxes and give the mayor guidance for, with the NVTA or Northern Virginia Transportation Authority public hearing on July 12th, when these taxes and fees will be considered by the NVTA. And I'd like to first recognize Mr. Al-Sosa, Director of Transportation, and we also have with us today, Atom Prasandhi, chairman of the Interim Technical Committee for the NVTA, and he will be available to answer questions and participate in the discussion as needed. And if we could, I'd like to continue with our presentation, which will be very short and will focus on the seven taxes and fees. And I guess all the council members have this on their screen. We're not seeing you know on our above screens. Going right to the seven regional taxes in fees. The first of the seven is the Granners tax, which is an increase of $0.40 per hundred dollars of valuation, which will be, which will be. Which will become effective July 1st, but not necessarily implemented on July 1st of 2007. This particular tax will, for the City of Fairfax, will equate to about $570,000 in revenue to the city to be applied to transportation projects. The next item, which is the Motor Vehicle Rental Tax, which is a 2% increase, or I'm sorry, an increase of 2% of the total, would equate to about $185,000 in revenue with the City of Fairfax. The transit occupancy tax, an addition of 2% on the total would equate to approximately $310,000. The safety inspection fee at $10 per year is calculated to equate to about $180,000. Sales tax on auto repairs a 5% of the total, and that applies to the service. There currently is a 5% tax on the actual parts when an auto repair is actually made. And that for the City of Fairfax which is quite a large number would equate to about 2.2 million dollars. The next item is the regional registration fee at $10 a year which we estimate to be about $190,000 that would not be implemented until January 1st 2008. Also at that same date would be the initial vehicle registration fee of 1% of the value of the vehicle. And that would equate to about $710,000. Those regional taxes would equate to approximately $4.3, $4.4 million in revenues for transportation for the city of Fairfax. These items, of course, they will be handled. The 4.4 million wouldn't be turned over to the city in right away. 40% of those revenues, the city would have complete control over as far as allocating it to its transportation and transit projects. The other 60% which will stay with the city but would have to be requested from the NBTA when we actually submit plans for particular transportation or transit construction projects. I do have a question on that 60%. So let's go back to that 40%. Do we have certain guidelines that we have to adhere to to be able to use that 40%. There is a great deal of flexibility in the 40%. Number we do have more control over that amount than we do the 60%. That would, those monies we actually could spend on a project and then we would have to report to the NVTA for what we use that project for. So we would not be requesting the money and then receiving it. We can actually use the money for the project and then just report to the NVTA as to what we use those funds for. Okay, and on that, if we, and on that. Can we make another clarification on the restrictions on that 40%. Currently, in the city of Fairfax, the only restrictions that we have as far as spending the 40% is we can only spend 50% off the 40% for transit and 50% of the 40% for highways, roads and traffic. That's the only current restrictions on that 40%. We cannot use 100% of that solely for either transit or for rules. Okay, and we can spend that and then we just have to report how we did that. Yes, all right. Okay, let me go to the 60%. If I could just follow up on that and I didn't catch that until just earlier, but I thought this was the section that we were going to ensure that Fairfax City was included in the list with Alexandria Arlington and false church, all of whom control their own roads of which we do as well. Why aren't we on that list? We didn't get included. Somehow we sent letters, even Senator Devalite and delegate boulevard sent letters to the governor. But I think there's a reason we were excluded from that list. To be honest, we did this could change my entire their staff that was putting the bill together, I think overlooked it. Well, I can just tell you if somebody needs my vote, we better get included in this list because we control and we pay for our own roads. And I was assured that we were going to be added to this list. We were told that at this next general assembly, that there will be an amendment to include that as in this list. Yeah, but why didn't we get included before? Well, the only explanation that I received is that this staff that was putting together this bill for the governor overlooking. So maybe it's our count heads, maybe we'll just refer our vote until if it's needed until the next general assembly needs. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lion. Thank you. Let's go now to that 60% just for a second. That's 60% of the 4.3. That will go then into a big bucket of money, and then it will get allocated to us. Or is it used for like Route 66? How is that 60% of that 4.3 or 4.4 million going to be used? Well, that's 60%. How do we get that? It is still allocated to the City of Fairfax, so other jurisdictions would not be able to take our share of the money. That money will be held by the NVTA and we will have to request that money from the NVTA and we will submit, we would submit projects in which they approve the project then we'd have the money released to the City of Fairfax, but other jurisdictions would not be able to, we would not lose the money that was raised by the City of Fairfax. is that guarantee because the state mine understanding of this as of yesterday was that 60% was going to go into a kind of a big pot and then we would maybe get allocated some of that. That was my understanding. So I'm going to make sure that this is 100% that what we raise is what we get to spend because my understanding was it was like 2.5 is what we would get to get to keep and the rest of the about 5 million that we would be raising would then go into that 60% pot. Okay. No, we actually have there's there are different taxes and fees here and they will be collected by different entities and you know we because we don't collect normally many of these taxes and fees. So for example, the state will collect some, the police will collect some. Right. But there will be records of which jurisdiction those funds belong to. Okay. And we will not be, we would not, our funds would not be allocated to a different jurisdiction. Okay, I want to make sure that's true. But let's just go over just the taxes in general. We have the 40%, 40 cents, the 2%, the 5%, all of these different amounts. How did these rates get changed? I mean, will this come back to us if they choose to raise the grantor's tax from 40 cents, let's say, to 50 cents? How does that work? Well, by increasing it by 40 cents, that it will not come back to us if NVTA does approve the increase of an additional 40 cents of value. There will not require any additional action by the council. But let's say then we approve the four, but since we go back to the bill, and none of these rates can be changed. Okay. This is it the bill, and none of these rates can be changed. Okay. This is it for the next 30 years. Well, unless the general assembly changes the rates again next year. But my question, I guess, is this. Then do they come back if they change the rate, let's say five years from now, then will they have to come back to us to do that? Let me just step in here if I can't. The only reason this is on the agenda tonight, quite frankly, is because I wanted to make sure there was buying with a council who would then give me input in terms of how to vote on the 12th. This is not required to be honest with you. The bill gives the appointed mayor or chair or their designate the right to vote for against quite frankly, irregardless of what the will of the council is, which is an, I never felt more powerful in my entire life. But these are in the bill, but even if the General Assembly one day decides to change these, it would then go back to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, who assuming you would then have a representative mayor who would out of courtesy come back to this body but it would not be required. That's my question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no other questions at this time. I mean, there are some things that I know that we have to do, or I guess you would have to do, is designate different folks. I mean, that was a list. And you tasked us to go through this and as I did that, Mr. Mayor. And I'm hoping wondering when that will happen to how we go about voting. As I make the appointment. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could, Mr. Bersoso, just to add on one thing, and I brought this up and asked the staff to be prepared tonight to be able to answer this. But my bigger concern is not the dollar amount so much. It's what happens with this money, as we all know, because we're a city. We go through a completely different channel and proven of our roads and signage and systems than counties do. And it's been proven that the system that cities go through when state money is involved is a bureaucratic time-consuming mess. The question I have is, are these monies going to be considered state monies? Or are they going to be considered local money, either at the region or within, so it doesn't trigger the state process when state monies are involved? doesn't trigger the state process when state monies are involved. Whatever, definitely it's not federal. For sure. But whatever the city needs to comply with in terms of the state regulations, we still have to comply with. As far as the 40% portion that comes to the city, we have full control of that money. Maybe I didn't wear it in my question right. Once we decide we want to build a road, if there's state and or federal, we know what happens when the federal gets laid on top of the state, but let's just stop at the state level. That triggers a whole approval process that goes from one end of Richmond to the other end of Richmond because we're a city. We don't have access to the Northern Virginia approval process that counties do. Will this money, when it's used, trigger that system, and I understand ultimately the B.Dot would have to review anything we do, even if when it's city money, but does it trigger the same system that's currently in place now when we have state money that's part of a project is opposed to fund it by city dollars? The only approval process that we'll have to go through is if it has any regional implications. In terms of say air quality. terms of say air quality which would have to go through the approval process of NVTA and then the transportation planning board. But if all regionally control, but if it's not a significantly regional impact, then the city has full control over the road. Tom, would you agree with that evaluation? If I can get you to thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I'm Tom Beshawney. I am the Chairman of NVTA's Interim Technical Committee, also a Fairfax County employee. Alex is correct that for the monies that are coming back to the city, for projects that the city is going to undertake on your own without any state or federal, then you would not have to do anything different than you have to do right now with your existing funds that you use, either your general funds or whatever that you would use for a grown construction. Perfect. Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Respassa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The slide that you had up, which is in our packages on page three, the top one, this, and it goes back to this issue of the allocation between the 16-40%, clearly the 40% comes back to the city. If we did this and if it was approved, 40% comes back to the city. This says 60% goes to NVTA. I was under the impression that they had some control over approving projects of that 60% that wouldn't guarantee that the 60% wouldn't come back to the city. That's true. The 60% is controlled by MBTA. That's not what Mr. Hodgkin said. And that's not true. Yeah, my understanding, let's speak on this, is that it is our money, but we would have to basically apply, we would have sent our plans in and actually apply to have our plans approved to receive the money to pay for the project. No, no, the 40% we do not have to, the 40% we can spend the 40% and just report to the NVTA, I'm not going to spend it on. The 60% is where we actually do have to submit our plans and request the funding for our project. Well, and then NVT as a whole may or may not approve them, but that is, that's 60 percent is controlled at the NVTA level. Is that correct? Yes. He said that into the city. But that's still our money. Does that? Yes, but I thought he said that it also would eventually come back to the city. Yes, they cannot, because that would, that is city money that cannot be used. For example, by Loudon County or Fairfax County or any other jurisdictions that would stay in the Fairfax City hot. Mr. Reyes, you're correct that the decision on the 60 would be NVTA's decision. However, the bill is very clear that each jurisdiction should get back the benefit of the revenue that they are putting in. So the money that is raised here in Fairfax City would not be able to be used for a project in Loudon County or Prince William or something like that. You would need to have the benefit of that money back. Now, some of that benefit may be regional benefit for Metro or something like that. But. Well, but it also could be I-66. It could be I-6. Right. But I just want to make the point that it's not automatic. Right. 100% of this $4 million comes back to the city for us to spend That very 40% comes back with when no strings attached correct the 60% we have to compete for at NVTA In a sense we're competing with regional as opposed to strictly city projects Unless the city can come up with a large enough project that will consume our allocation at NVTA. And then we apply for that and NVTA says yes, this is a good project for the city. You can spend all your money on this project. Well, in any given year, that will be fairly easy to do. Now, collectively may not be, but any given year. Right. Please, Mr. President. I agree. That's certainly possibility. not be but any given year. Right. Please, Mr. President. I agree. That's certainly the possibility. But somebody is going to have to come up with this $50 million for Metro and $25 million for VRE. And I think we need to be realistic. Some of that money is going to come out of our 60% or our 100%. Yes. And your respective of whether we got a grand project that can spend 50 million dollars just for the city. You're right sir. This is we will lose part of this 100% this 50 million and 25 million comes off the top right now. I'm not saying that's saying I'm just saying that's the fact of life We need to yeah, the end of this and our share for the 50 million is around two million The city's share. 2 million. That begs the question, and I know we've been talking at some time that, let's say the city of Fairfax wants to fairly quickly develop a new road infrastructure, which we're talking about, certainly on the master plan around 50 and whatever roads we do. And it's a $50 million project. I've always been part of our discussions, I've always been here internally that some of this money and I'm guessing it's more the 40% than the 60% could be used as a stream to pay off the bonds if we floated a $50 million bond for transportation. Is that correct? And would that be both the 60% and the 40 assuming in the 60, the NVTA approved it? The 40% certainly should be used for bond and 60% as you've indicated would need to be considered with other, you know, other requests that this would benefit the city as well. So, I mean, the discontent- It's already possible that, yes, the portion of the 60% could be used. I mean, I've always viewed the 60% as something that may be nice in the impact of the city, but wouldn't directly flow in to the city. The 40% is more that area, but Mr. Sivan, I mean, the thing I worry about getting to Mr. Assmus, this point, and the small I was asking that question as well. And I think, Mr. Mayor, you get it. And those people who know regional politics understand it well, that as a small city, I think we have to protect our interests. And there are certain members or chairman of governing bodies who tend to be, you know, overzealous or aggressive or convoli others into pursuing a particular project. And I just want to make sure that I still don't sense, I don't have a comfort level here that our residents and our community are going to benefit in the same category as the larger jurisdictions. There's just seems to be that level of protection, 40% is great, but the level of protection with the 60 still troubles me. And I don't mean when you're talking about smaller cities, false church, paraphets, even Alexandria is not that big. When you think about it, if I compare it about one tenth the size of Fairfax County. Understood. And I think that your concern is shared by all of the nine local governments that are at the MBCA. As you know, the MBCA has released an initial bond list and it was very important that that bond list had projects for all of the nine local governments. And I think the concern that you have is no of the reasons that's in the legislation is that jurisdictions felt that it was important that each jurisdiction could go back to their voters and say this is what benefit our jurisdiction got from this legislation. From your taxes. Well, and if I could, I think, you know, this is such a complicated issue to kind of hash out tonight, but the NVTA operates on a series of priority points. I don't know what the right terminology is, but when road projects get thrown in the hopper by jurisdictions, there's a very technical, somewhat staff-driven process that says, either meets our criteria or doesn't meet our criteria as a region. And if it meets that criteria, I've never seen a situation where a jurisdiction would just out of spite or whatever pulled it out. And it certainly hasn't been the case for the city, including the bond package. I know there was a project that was put in there that didn't meet the criteria, but that's a criteria that the region without ever looking at a specific road project has worked through over a long period of time that I believe is a fairly fair, well communicated, easy, I don't know if I'd say easy to understand, but it's not something you have to hunt for. That project have to be balanced against. Is it my outlining this correctly? And as well as the criteria that NVTA is adopted, one of the criteria is regional balance. And regional balance, again, goes back to the fact that the jurisdictions will get that benefit back for the money that they put in. And if a list is developed and it isn't balanced regionally, then before it comes the MBTA Staff make sure that it is balanced Well, and why why you're here with us, and I certainly appreciate your time can you just comment on My little explosion earlier tonight in terms of learning tonight that we didn't get included in the list with Alexandria Arlington and fostered Despite the fact that we as a city control our own roads and and just a little background in terms of that issue from your perspective. I don't know specifically about the city of Fairfax. I know that we did ask the sponsors of the bill to broaden that to give that same flexibility to all nine jurisdictions, and they weren't unwilling to do that. And they basically, when the bill came back, it basically had three that were originally in the bill. But it was my understanding that three were in the bill because they controlled their own secondary roads, like cities, and I an Arlington because they've been carved out. But why would the, what would be the only other explanation why Alexander Arlington and false church were lumped into that in the city? The reason that they put forward was not necessarily that they control their own roads, but that they did not feel that they could spend 50 percent of the money on road projects in their jurisdiction that they wanted the flexibility to spend 100% of the money on transit projects. Given their comprehensive plans and where they're going, they're not widening a lot of roads in Arlington or Alexandria Falls Church. They do have some road projects that are intersection improvements and things like that, but they did not believe that they could spend the whole amount of their 58% on roadway projects. And they asked for that flexibility to spend it on transit. Well, and that makes sense, but that's not the ex you just shared that you thought it was going to get changed and the city was going to be included in that in the next legislative session. So where's that disconnect? Well, we wanted to get into it so that we could enjoy the same flexibility that the three other jurisdictions did when we saw the bill. But considering that we have large transportation road projects that we're going to be able to spend on anyway. I think the sponsors of the including the governor, the sponsors and the governor decided not to include us initially. Like I said, and then I get that's a different rationale than why these three, at least that U-TOM, and just shared with us why these three were included. My concern would be this forces is to spend 50 percent as a small jurisdiction on mass transit or something other than roads. When the roads, although we do have our own Cuba system, what that's forced us to do is take a lot out of the general fund and now allocate toward that, quote, 50 percent, which I don't know. That's the spearter, the intent of what we're trying to accomplish. No. And let me just clarify, the 50 percent is a minimum that you can, that you must spend on your urban system. It is not a maximum. And the slide, I actually wrote the original slide and the second bullet there is not fully correct. Urban system should be included in that second bullet. So you could spend 100% of your money on your urban system if you choose to. You must spend a minimum of 50%. The other 50% you could spend on transit, you could spend on long-term projects in the transaction 2030, or you could spend it on the urban program. That's very helpful. That's different than when I was understanding earlier, but that's very helpful. Miss Cross. Do those funds have to be spent in a prescribed amount of time, or can you sort of bank your contributions for? There's no particular time limit that's included in the bill. So if you had a large project and you wanted to save your allocation over a number of years for a large project, you could do that. All right. Other questions of staff? Well, I did. I had a very broad question that I'll just for the mayor's consideration has he sit on this body. But I would like some reassurance that all of this funding is not coming just from the private sector. I would like to know what kind of funding is coming from the trucking industry and the bus industry and many, many others, of course, that just use the highways as a means for earning their living or running their business. Do you happen to know that? Well I think some of the tax as such as the grantor's tax is going to be paid by the seller of property regardless of their individuals or whether their businesses or regardless of who owns the property. Okay, so that goes both into the commercial properties and residential properties. Anyone who sells property is subject to that. In addition to that, things like the registration fees for vehicles and the 1% initial registration fee are going to be paid by whoever the owner of that vehicle is. Whether it's an individual or it's a commercial business or whatever. There's no exemptions to this. So they would all, if that vehicle is registered in Northern Virginia in one of the nine jurisdictions, you're going to pay a $10 fee every year and you'll pay the 1% the first time it's registered, regardless of who owns the vehicle. But if a trucking line is based in Delaware and is using the transit system through this region, they're not going to get assessed anything, I gather. Well, in the statewide portion of the bill, there are several things that would affect the trucking line. One of them is they are equalizing the tax on diesel fuel with the tax on gasoline. Right now diesel fuel is 1.5 cents less than gasoline, so there will be a tax there. In addition to that, there are higher fees for overweight vehicles. So if that trucking company comes in, they stop at that rest area or the inspection station on 995, they're overweight, they will pay higher fees than they do today for overweight vehicles. So those affect the state program and provide some of the state revenues. They don't directly affect the program here in Northern Virginia. Just one other thing. Do all of these need to be adopted? Is it all or none? Or can you pick issues? No. The NBTA could choose to do zero or seven or anything in between. But once they've chosen attacks, they need to adopt it at the rate that's specified. There's no flexibility that you could do the grantor's tax at half that rate. If it's going to be done, it has to be at 40 cents. Any other questions or staff? If not, let me just say I know we're going to open this up to the public here, but just a personal comment in that this whole issue is incredibly complex and it is absolutely amazing to me the amount of work that these two folks right here, Tom specifically is the head of this and the technical and certainly Alex and all the jurisdiction technical staff have spent on this. I have to say I go to most of these meetings with my head spinning. I feel a little bit like a duck out of water. I come from a small jurisdiction and you walk into this room and they fill around terms and terminologies and technical issues that are way over my pay grade in terms of understanding. So I somewhat inquire than some of my colleagues may be on these discussions. But I just want to say publicly to you, specifically, and certainly to Alex as well, and to all the staff, but specifically to you, Tom, it's just amazing the work and the energy and the level of commitment you've done to this. I'll just say my personal experience. I've never seen a question that's been asked to the technical staffs that somebody hasn't had an answer and the amount of work. And this truly is an incredible example of regional cooperation because this is all done by donations of staffs from the various jurisdictions. Because there is no at this point formal staff that manages the NBTA. It's all sort of in kind and the Fairfax County donating time, time and Fairfax City and Alex and every jurisdiction is doing that. So I just want to say publicly it's a great sign of this region and the regional cooperation. It's a real sign of gratification for the work that you guys are doing behind the scenes to make this a reality. Regardless of where we stand on the various taxes in the merits of the bill or lack thereof, it really is an amazing thing to watch from somebody who's sort of new to this arena. And I certainly applaud your efforts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would also note that others on your staff, David and Brian have also been actively involved in the working groups. And putting together the recommendations. In this party. I would just note their contributions as well. Thank you. Okay. With that, we will open the public hearing. There are two people who have signed up previously, rolling gun. If you give us your name and address for the record, please. I'm Roland Gunn and I live at 3221 Dominic Ward in Oakland. I am here tonight on behalf of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and the Coalition of 21 Business Groups that was formed to support legislation like HR 3202 and are very interested in its prompt implementation. We have a unique opportunity now to address transportation on a regional level. We function as a regional economy. We live and shop and move regionally. Anything that we can do to improve the overall transportation infrastructure benefits us all. We've been given a chance to take one of our major problems and come up with our own funding source to solve it. We can raise somewhere around $300 million a year. All of this money stays in northern Virginia to be used to address our problems. There are four things that I'd like to emphasize. First of all, I think that it is imperative that we thank and act regionally. Second, we need to develop a concise list of mode neutral performance-based regional priorities. Third, we need to pull and leverage local, regional, and state transportation dollars to invest in projects that will make the greatest difference for everyone. And finally, we need to make sure that the Technical Advisory Committee, we appoint, is composed of experts who do not have preconceived political or modal agendas. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Our next sign up William Rich. Mr. Chairman, may we, William Bell, Rich, live at 660-007, Makely make-ly drive perfect station of Virginia. And I don't know if it's a contest on tonight who's been in Missouri longer, but I first to July be 50 years for me. On relations. 19, do I get the rose, take the rose home? 1932, I think one of the most significant acts of the General Assembly was the passing of the Highway Act. And a system was established that made this commonwealth and all over. One of the finest operated highway systems, one in the United States was always the, and this acted for about 40 years and then the Oil and Bargo of 1973 created a system. Part of that taxes kept up with demand and as people drove, they used more product and it was a beautiful... At that point, the whole world turned around. And that was that the man kept going up but the funds kept going down. And no personal criticism, but I put that period on what I would call as a period of filing our fingernails. We kept filing our fingernails. We didn't feel anything of significance. But ladies and gentlemen, we filed them to the quik. And as we all know, what you've done that, this is not a process that you recover very easily. It's very painful. that you recover very easily, it's very painful. The General Assembly, what they did for us, this last session, I think it was as significant as the 1932 highway act, in that we have been able to break the umbilical cord, not as deep as we'd like to and as far as we'd like to go. But we have started. And I, Mr. Letter, your comments about cooperation and I haven't appreciated you saying about the Fairfax County School System. I haven't been chairman at one time, so I know what you're entering. I also was on a highly commission, so I know what we're going through now. But I just the opportunity for this region to not only use this as a transportation cooperation. It almost is a thing that those of us who have worked all these years have been hoping for and that was we could get more cooperation. Because that's only going to solve our problems. So I, what Mr. Gounness said, I endorse that and I appreciate the opportunity and thank you very much. Thank you. Nobody else has previously seen signed up but anybody would like to address the city council on this side. Mr. Ordo. I'm going to go to the office. Cheerio, D'Al. I don't know that anyone said that well, you were talking about earlier. July 12, 2007 public comments can be made up to that time in writing. And at that time, there will be a public hearing at the Mary Allen Henderson Middle School, 7130 Leisberg Pike Falls Church, Virginia. The writing comments should go to 3060. William's Drive, Suite number 510, Fairfax, Virginia, 22031. You can listen to replay to get those straight. I like the fact that the money of purportedly stays in the control and in the geographic area where the money came from, the tax money was raised. I'm a little bit concerned about the height of some of these sizes, some of these taxes. I don't know if it's within your power to do anything about them, but I kind of question as a grander's tax, Does that refer to real estate? If so, it's talking about $0.40 on $100 of valuation. You take a $400,000 home divided by $100. You get $4,000 times $0.40. And it comes out at $1,600 bill. Suppose somebody who's cash poor inherits a house. And they can't afford the $1,600 tax or whatever being taxed, whatever being granted. Okay, so I think that's a little hefty and a little arbitrary. And even worse, I think, is the sales tax on auto repairs, 5%. I just went to my lifelong mechanic of, well, since 1980, that's not quite my entire life. It must be good. It must be honest, if I'm willing to go back, I just paid 890 some dollars for my $120,000 checkup. And that ain't old. I got to go back in 5,000 miles for a new timing belt. A new timing belt. You take $900 and multiply by 5%. That's a hefty tax. And this initial vehicle registration fee of $1% I guess that's more than what you're already charging. And that in effect effectively partially reinstates the once diminished and scheduled for extinction car registration fee. So we have some things going on here that are not in the public interest. I don't think. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the city council on that side? If not, we'll close the public hearing and what? You have a question, maybe you sure, maybe you've stabbed, you've just got thrown out there. Sure. Two appointments that we need to make, I believe, for the July 12th meeting. One is to the coordinating advisory committee, which I think is an elected official from the city of Perfax. not on the NBTA so not you and I, because I understand that I think even an alternate is not allowed to be appointed to that if I have understood that correctly. And then the other is the jurisdiction and agency coordinating committee. Is that just an appointment? You have the ability to make is that an appointment that we all need to sit here and agree with. I just want to make sure we don't miss anything. I don't think you're at the July 12 meeting. No, I am. Or you're now there. I never was not. Okay. You were joking that I was going to have to go and vote. I was joking. Well, good. But I don't have to do it. Well, and what I'd ask us to do is let's focus on the big picture here. Certainly if anybody has any ideas or recommendations, I certainly have some and really have not focused on it yet. I would I only got the email yesterday that suddenly the day was July the fifth and it didn't come to even me directly. So it's not an issue I really have focused on yet. But what I would be looking for and what I would like to try to get, I know there's sample motions here. I'm not looking for what I would like to try to get. I know there's sample motions here. I'm not looking for seven different motions, but I think what would be very helpful in this process. And the reason for this public hearing and council consensus or support or lack thereof is some direction in terms of how this body feels on all seven of these. And I think it's very important to keep in mind. I think every one of us could debate the merits, the pros and cons of each and every one of these taxes. The reality is that's not really the position that we're in and the way that the bill was approved. It's said by staff, either we accept the rate for each one of these seven items or we are not in favor of each one of those any one of these individual seven items. And I would just hope we don't oversimplify this process. The goal was to raise the $400 million for the region through transportation and the state legislators went through and identified the taxes that could be considered and the rates that it could be considered. And so it'd be very easy for us to vote no against any one of these. But if we do, then we need to understand the implications brought to the region in the city that it starts pulling away from the big pool that was backed into by these various regional taxes. I should also say because we haven't talked about it at all. The component of this bill that we'll be considering in our next budget deliberation is the commercial real estate assessment. So that's in addition to what we're talking about. That rate will be controlled entirely by the City Council. These rates will be controlled entirely by the nine chairs or mayors or their designees at the regional level. And so I would just ask this that we keep this in mind as we go through this process. So let me see if we can get some dialogue discussion as a consensus. It might be easier to say, are there any one of these seven that there is a serious concern over instead of going through each one of the seven, at least, for the dialogue of the discussion? And maybe that's the best starting point. Let me see if I can just get some feedback on. In the big picture, are there any one of the seven that this body has a major heartburn over? No? Okay. Then I would just ask instead of seven different motions that we can just read, you know, the first one that says I move the City Council and the City of Fairwick support. An increase to the seven taxes that are authorized and outlined by the Senate bill or House bill, whatever it is, 3210 I think is at the number 323232 3232. I'm going to put the order to do. 32. Oh, too. 32. Oh, too. Move by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Greenfield. Any discussion? Hearing? Positive discussion. Ornick, I'm a little surprised. Mr. Marip, I may, and I appreciate the business community turning out this evening. I'm surprised that NSTAP is well by the way from the county and the city, thank you. We haven't heard from many residents on this issue. And that aside from Mr. O'Dell, how could I forget? And I do think that this is a substantial benefit to the city. And it's something that as we talked about, I know it's been tinkered with sense we talked, Mr. Mayor. But clearly, I think all of us on this body have felt that something needs to be done in this area for a long time. And finally, as was stated by one of our guests tonight at the legislature, effectively got their act together and helped make this possible. But, you know, I also believe that at the end of the day, you know, this is one of those things when you hear from the business community, it's not one of the challenges we had a few years ago was that this almost became a business or a development issue in particular versus a, you know, moving people in northern Virginia around northern Virginia. Because somehow another got tired and feathered with the stigma of big development and growth. And I don't think that's the case here. I mean, when I hear from the business community representing the board of trade and others that are here tonight, I look at it as a simple issue of getting employees to the place of work. And that to me is more paramount than new growth or new development. It's a matter of people that I talk to in various businesses around here and I used to work for one in Tyson's where the HR director used to say, you know, it's just impossible to get people to and from, you know, the place of employment. And that's why Metro was so important to my old employer at Tyson's. So those are the, and the tunnel issue as well. We won't go into that thing. But those are the kind of things that hasn't really been said. And I just want to make sure, especially for the community at large, is listening to this. This is about getting our residents in and around, north of Virginia and around town. But it's also about benefiting the entire region, getting to the point that Mr. Ress must and I and others to hit on earlier, that in your point, Mr. Mayor about 66, we see it every time there is a traffic jam on 66, Route 50, backs up all through the entire city. Every single time, it's a nightmare. And so all of these things, regionally speaking, are very important to the city as well. I yield. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sower. Any add Mr. Resman? Just a couple of wee comments, Mr. Mayor. Is your microphone on? Here we go. Thank you. As you alluded to earlier, Mr. Mayor, we could pick apart this list that we were so inclined to, but it really is a list that is a compromise of a lot of different things. There are a couple of taxes here that our citizens won't have to pay, like the Transadoccurancy Tax, the Motor Vehicle Rental Tax. There are others which our citizens will have to pay, and maybe some heavily, like the Grand Tour Tax. But in the end, it's going to benefit all of us to move ahead with something like this. And so I think it just makes good sense for you, Mr. Mayor, to do whatever you can in NBTA to support the efforts that we're moving towards. Strong leadership. Any other comments? If none, all in favor of the motion of support, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And a passionate annum say that now brings us to agenda item number 7H, public hearing and council action or appropriation and resolution in the amount of 5,800,000 for the development of ball fields of the staff for property, Westmore property, Draper Drive Park, Green Nakers property, Providence Park and Providence Elementary has been properly advertised. Staff report, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of Council. This item relates to $5.8 million that we have. That we're looking to appropriate for the development and improvement of ball fields, specifically the Stafford property, the West Moore property, Draper Drive Park, Green Acres property, Providence Park, and Providence Elementary School. This amount relates to designs that were made for each one of these properties. However, there is flexibility in that we could actually take some. If the plan does change for any one of these projects, we do have ability to take the money from one project and apply it to another one. For example, Draper Drive wasn an originally included in the original financing. The city has done the financing for the development to fund this project. And the $5.8 million is available to the city. And at this point, we would just like to appropriate those funds to begin some of these projects. And we also would like to do it at this time. We have held off until we were hoping to get a final design for each one of these projects. But we are at the year end and we because we have received the money, we do want to appropriate the money in this fiscal year. Mr. Greenfield. Thank you. One of the questions I asked I thought, I guess, Council comments I made at the last meeting dealt with green acres and the possibility of not going forward there because of the cost. The logic behind doing green acres was we had a lot of excess dirt from staffer that we were going to, I don't know where Mr. McCarty is, we were going to move over from staffer to green acres now that we aren't going to move all of that dirt. We have two options. We either pay to bring in dirt or we lower the field to be able to get another field there. That money could either be saved or could potentially be put towards something else. I didn't see that in this report and certainly there's time. I realize it's approving the resolution for the 5.8. We don't have to spend all of that, but I would ask that without any objection from Council that some analysis be done and perhaps if you bring it back to us in September, in a work session or whatever it might be looking at, should we go forward with green acres, if not, should we just save that money and not spend up to the full 5.8 million or should we look at perhaps because of the Congress scale and being able to get an additional artificial turf field or something like that, that you're doing one, you do two, whatever it might be. If we look at all of those options and present that back to us in September, I think that's a missing piece here now that we know that we don't have a lot of dirt, excess dirt to move from staff or to green acres. Well, and I will just simply say I had that same concern and dialogue and discussion with staff. I was assured that we're not spending this money. We're actually reserving it and that we will have that opportunity, Mr. Hodgkins, is the way you described it to me when we were talking about putting this item on the agenda tonight. Sorry, that is correct. So all of those options, Mr. Greenfield, just outlined, when we have more time and staff can spend more attention to those details, we'll have that opportunity to do that. There's nothing we're doing tonight that would prohibit that dialogue. That is correct. And it simply is to the timing is because we are at the end of June that we do want to appropriate it at this time. It surely doesn't mean that we're going to spend it and we realize or staff realize is that the plans and designs for these various parks and properties have not been finalized. And so we do have the flexibility to obviously hold the money and we can reallocate as the designs are finalized and approved by the council. Any other questions or staff? Okay. Hearing none, this is a public hearing. We have two who have previously signed up, Jackie Fairbarns and I'm president of the Cambridge Station Association. I've lived at 97.08 Ranger Road for nearly 40 years. With regard to the Stafford West property, we appreciate the opportunities you have given us over the past few months to provide input on the Ballfield Development Plan for that property. You and the City staff have listened patiently to our comments and suggestions, and we appreciate that as well. Since the decision has already been made to go ahead with the Ballfield on Stafford West, there's no point in discussing that further, and I'm not going to put you to sleep by doing so. But before you write the checks for those projects, there are some numbers I would like you to consider. Since in the process of all these hearings that you've had, there have been so many numbers tossed around that my head has been reeling, but my physicist to be grandson assures me that math is really easy. So my calculator and I have spent some time together and I have some numbers I would like to at least suggest you consider. To begin with, I would like to comment that Fairfax City is a completely separate and independent political entity. that Fairfax City is a completely separate and independent political entity. I understand that we have a fair and equitable access to facilities sort of arrangement with Fairfax County, which I acknowledge benefits most of us most of the time. And having said that, and I think I've alluded already to the fact that I'm not a numbers person, I deal more with words and, and understand those much better than statistics and theoretical mathematics. However, here are some numbers I understand and present them to you and I acknowledge also that these issues have been niggling at me and the members of my community for some time now. According to the 2000 census Fairfax City has 3564 residents in the age range from 5 through 19 years out of total population of 969,749. Fairfax City has a land area of roughly 6 square miles, while Fairfax County has 66 times our land area, which gives them a lot more space for sports facilities. At the same time the county has 44 times the city's population. Not to mention a tax base to die for. The $5,800,000 which is really $6,000, really $6,203,000. I told you I didn't do numbers well. When the interest is added, amounts to a debt of $1,740.46 for each and every child in the city between the ages of 5 and 19. Of course, the younger children won't have a chance to pay this for a few more years but their parents and grandparents certainly will. Fairfax County would have to budget and spend more than $300 million to equal the effort Fairfax City is prepared to make to provide these playing facilities. I don't know if Fairfax County is budgeting the amount of money for development, improvement of playing fields for their nearly 200,000 children ages 5 through 19. If you do not know either, I suggest you find out and keeping in mind that we might well be punching above our weight here if necessary, scale back our plans so that we're not in fact doing way more than our share in this effort to do the best for our own residents. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor Letter and members of Council. I bet you didn't think you'd see me here again. We have to stop meeting like this. But this is our last chance to make any points. We understand the direction in which you're going. And I just had a couple comments I wanted to share with you. As we look at the funding for this, it's 2.6 million for this one combination field as I understand it right now. And I'm wondering is that really truly the total amount. And then when we equated the five, the cost of the 23 acres that you purchased for 6 million, you add about 1.3 million for the five acres. So that means if I understand this correctly, that the cost of developing this field is 3.9. That seems like a lot. And I just want to go on to say, oh, I'm Elizabeth Gay, and I live in 97, 16 Ranger Road. And I'm here as a citizen, interested citizen, as well as a member of our directors of the Homeowners Association. And also have been very active in sports and have been active with Prab in the past. So I really do support athletic development and fields. Going on to say just a few things, I remember in the past when we were looking at this development over the past eight weeks and trying to understand the logic for this particular location. I heard that the PREV said that the justification for one field versus two would not be very cost effective if they couldn't have everything they wanted. And we as a group tried to talk to PREV about, you know, having them get the complex they really want and need somewhere. And of course in the course of doing this, we discovered what was really unique about this particular property and that's what caused us to take pause and look at it in a different light. There is a question that still I ponder and wonder. If Mosby Woods, which really has the majority of the kids who participate in Fairfax Police Youth Club and want this field or would benefit from it the most, that I have a hard time finding as others do and understanding why mosby woods would not. We understand the easement issue, but why mosby woods would not want to have a trail completed or assigned? We think that the kids ought to be able to, you know, go to the field that way. It seems like it's all being pushed over on staff or drive, which isn't necessarily the most safe and easy access. So that's a concern. There has been a lot, no conversation about the removal of trees and the area that has been chosen for development is basically in the most unique habitat of all. It's the open meadow, it's the seasonal wetland, et cetera, et cetera. And the removal of trees there will be significant. They're not 100-year growth, but they are young growth and a great variety, and I'm sure it will be in hundreds. And so, in closing, all I would like to say, I think the biggest disappointment of all of this for us is that we never were able to engage city council and other interested parties. And a meaningful discussion about to explore the proposed use that we set forward about using this as a natural classroom and an echo lab. We basically had some people with credentials come in and look at this and we talked to the schools and the university. So I think that's the disappointment that we didn't really explore that option and that we're going forward with one option. So I just close and just say that I hope in the future we're not pitted against each other that's been very uncomfortable for a lot of us because we're not anti-legs. We like to work together in our city and we like a nice balance and what we were trying to appeal to you was just to take a little time back and just consider your options and perhaps take a new initiative and environmental leadership. Thank you for your time. When anybody else in the audience likes to address the city council on this item, Mr. O'Dell. Jerry O'Dell, famous or at least persistent speaker at this podium, said to you on this subject last time, imagine punches pilot saying, in the spirit of compromise, they'll only one hand and one foot of Christ through the cross. I think that's still crucifixion. I think disturbing this nature habitat is still raping the environment in the interest of what? Sports? Come on, this other ground in the area that can be used. The clining this measure tonight is your last opportunity to act responsibly regarding the preservation of the wild life preserve the nature habitat at Stafford property. You could separate that item Stafford property and appropriate for the other projects here in if you are pressed to spend money during this fiscal year. Now let's look at the $403,000 figure and 20 years and prove, I'm sorry to say, that the second-last speaker at this podium wasn't, as you said, very good at math. You see, $403,000 times 20 years is $8,000,000, comma 0, 6, 0, comma 0, 0, 0, whatever that means. Now, if you divide five million, 800,000 dollars, the figure you actually published in this bulletin, buy that into the 8 million, the 60,000 figure I just worked out for you, you get 1.3896551. In other words, you're paying just about 39% more in interest over 20 years. And that works out if you divide that by 20 years to 0.0694827 or 6.948% interest. That's like paying almost 7% for a mortgage. Can't you get a better interest rate than this? Is somebody on the take because you're not doing a homework or what? Would anybody else in the City Council like to, or in the audience like to address the City Council? Harry, now we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Somebody? Is the line? I moved to Dops, an appropriation resolution. Next line. I move to Dops, an appropriation resolution. He mounted $5,800,000 for the development of all fields at the staff for property, Westmore property, Draper drive park, Green Acres property, Providence park, and Providence elementary school. Loved by Mrs. Lyon, seconded by Mrs. Cross and you discussion. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And I guess passed unanimously. That now brings us to a gen I number 8, which are items not requiring a public hearing, which are not in theation, item number nine, presentation of the public in any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Nobody has, I believe previously signed up with anybody like to address the City Council. Very none. We'll now go to approval of the minutes of the June 12, 2007 meeting. So I can move by Mr. Silverthirne, seconded by Mr. Greenfield, any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it passed unanimously. We're going to do a gin-diner number 11, which is the closed meeting. I move the City Council convene the closed meeting intersection 2.23711A1 to discuss personnel matters. All in council members. In favor of the motion, please signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it's a passing anarchy and the city council went into a closed meeting at 10.50 p.m. 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 of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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 of the same thing. I'm going to do a the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. 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 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 to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the music I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna to play 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. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna 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 of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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 of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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 of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do to the same thing. . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to 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 of the same thing. I'm I'm Good. 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. music I'm 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 it. I'm going to do it. I'm I'm going to do a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little 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. The Move that each of us certify the best of each council member's knowledge on the public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and only public business managed to identify it in the motion. Convenient the close 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. Mr. Greenfield? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move the City Council's concurrence for the appointment of David A. Summers as Director for the Court for the City of Red Max. It's been moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Silverthorn, pinning a close vote here. Mr. Summers, let me just say on behalf of the Council, we wanted to compliment you A on your new suit. We think you look very stellar in that. That might have been the issue that put you right over the edge there, but we all look forward to working with you, and we certainly wish you the best in your city manager speaks very highly of you and has total confidence that you'll rise to the occasion when we do too. And so we wish you the best of luck. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And a passing annals, like congratulations. That now brings us to comments by the City Council, Mrs. Lyme. Oh, Mr. Rear, no comments tonight. Mr. Sermotho. Why is there no comments? Mr. Restm with her. Mr. Rasmussen. 50th anniversary of the Museum of Visitors Center on your property. Fourth of July. Oh, right. She turned it on. She can turn it on for you. That's interesting. I know you would. That's why. And the agency needs that help. I'll help. I can handle it. So, just congratulations to the Museum of Visitors Center. Mr. Grimfield. You know, I will just with hold. Any remarks I was going to make this evening, I will pass. Miss Cross. Be in an encouragement to come to the terrific parade. And what's wrong? You've got turned on. And the middle of you talk here maybe it's like you have mail you the wizard behind the curtain is act it once again anyway come to the parade it's one of the best in the whole East Coast. World. In our office. And the fireworks are absolutely fabulous. So come to fear of high school for those. I think that starts around. The program starts at seven. Just one quick question and this would be of staff. I know there was some dialogue and discussion offline after our vote on the Stafford property that we had two weeks ago. One of the details of the motion had to do with Sunday hours. And I know in dialogue after that there was some questions in terms of the possibility of adjusting the Sunday hours. Is that something that has to be done tonight in reconsideration or is that something the council and its final wisdom if it was inclined to do so could do at a later date? It was a condition, if I remember correctly, I'm not prepared for this, but it was a condition of the approval. Yes, it would have to be formally reconsidered and that reconsideration would have to occur tonight So could we reconsider tonight and then defer it if we're not ready? I don't even know I don't even know what the right hours are but can we Bring it out for reconsideration and then defer to Some date certain and then deal with it in that format. Yeah, we need a Reconciteration motion from somebody on the prevailing side. I remember it was unanimous. Which is anybody, right? Anybody. That would put the motion back on the floor, and then someone could make a substitute motion to defer action on the item to a date certain. That would have the effect of unapproving the entirety of the approval until you formally reconsider it. Well, let me ask a different way. Does somebody know the right hours? If you have the hours, the discussion wasn't unfortunate. There's nobody here. Was they didn't even start their first game until one o'clock in the afternoon if I heard it right? If I remember, I'll turn my microphone on here. I didn't say turn my microphone. I'm just sort of looking at me with an evil eye down there, the issue was only the Sunday hours. Right. Right, and I think we had 10 to 5, but because of church and other things, they don't start that early and they wanted, they didn't, I think they started it new or preferred. Run a clone? Oh, okay. And then they did. So, you know, six o'clock or seven o'clock or something like that. I don't know what the appropriate end time would be, but that's the, it seems like we could just make an amendment. If somebody has that knowledge, I think that's the way to do it. I don't think we want to hold the whole decision in advance, but- 10 to five. 10 to five. So noon to seven, maybe? The issue was primarily the start time and that they didn't start anything anywhere in the city before noon because of church and I thought it was one o'clock but whatever I mean they'll have to live with whatever hours we give them but to allow some flexibility would you want to make it 10 to 5 hours is established by the city manager which would allow some flexibility if if you all want to change the hours later without having to come back formally or you want to have that time that would certainly be a better way. Yes, we can we can we make a friendly and since it was a land use I'm sorry but since it was a land use action somebody should just quickly make a motion to reconsider. Okay. And then if that's approved that puts the motion back on the floor and the city clerk can just note what the motion was. And I'm assuming you all remember just essentially motion will approve what the conditions is outlined in the next. The work hours on Sunday hours. With the follow-up change. And we're saying. Seconder agrees. Tend to noon or as. Tend to five ores amended by the City Manager. Perfect. So someone should make a motion. The only question I would ask is do you want to say by the City Manager or is amended by the City Council? I think it should be a council action. Okay. We can do that. I don't just set the hours then you don't just put that in. Or just then it'll have to come back. Okay. So let me see if I can get a motion for reconsideration. Just so moved. Okay, it's been moved by Mrs. Lyon, is there a second? Seconded by Mrs. Cross. So now the main motion is back on the floor. The motion for reconsideration has to be voted on. Okay, motion for reconsideration. So all in favor of the motion for reconsideration vote by saying aye. Opposed? No. Okay, so now it's been approved. The motion now is up for reconsidered original motion the original motion But somebody like to amend the original motion in terms of the hours of Sunday Mr. Mayor I'd like to move the hours That we approve before and amend them to something that mr. Sisson can City council or City Council can approve Well Actually if I may if you're going to amend the hours you should set some specific hours Okay, for Sunday specific hours what you read in the five 10 to five on Sunday or you're the council the well you don't need that last part because to change those then they would have to come back to council Okay, but when they come back to counsel. Okay. But when they come back to counsel, they could they just change the hours without, I thought they want to redo it. You want them to have the ability to just come back to counsel to change the hours? On Sunday. On Sunday. Right. Yeah, they could do that anyway. Okay. That's the, I'm sorry. That was the question I thought I asked originally. I thought you said we had to reconsider tonight. Well, no, but the hours has approved on Sunday or what? 10 to 5. No, no, 10 to 5. From the previous meeting. 10 to 5. 10 to 5. So, yeah, if those need to be changed or if they want to change it, they have to come back to Council.ation, but it's correct. Okay. So many like to withdraw the reconsideration. And with this seconder, okay, it's done. I'm sorry I brought it up. No, I think it's a fair point, but I just think that based on the concerns. Thank you. But based on the concerns, it's better to make sure that this is done not at 11.30 a. Night. Yeah, and that was the only intent. I was just trying to keep the options open. I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you said. I thought you said we had to reconsider tonight to keep that option open. If we don't, then the council can change just the hours on Sunday a week from now, three weeks from now, five months from now, then great. Now, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying this time. Okay. You're saying you can change the hours on Sunday without having to do the reconsideration. That's not true. No, not me, but the council. If you want council to be able to change what was approved, then you should do that through the reconsideration now. Okay. I'm sorry. When you said they, I thought you meant that the applicant could come in and ask for different hours. No, no, no. The city is different hours. But you have to treat them as if they're a land use applicant. You know what? It's one field in the scheme of everything. I think I'm kind of torn here because it's 11.30 at night. It looks like we already were criticized by somebody talking about George Mason Boulevard that we read an action out of close meeting at 1015. So, you know, I just think we have to be very careful here. This has been a heated issue. I don't want it to look like we're all in the sudden starting to pick it apart at the element. Now, and that's not, please don't take that as criticism, Mr. Mayor, what you're trying to do because I fully understand that if you don't do this tonight, do we have the opportunity to do it again? So that's it. And I would just say, I don't know that the Sunday hours were the heated decision. It was either field or no field. But I'm comfortable. I thought there was a consensus that somebody had just forgotten about that we ought to change the hours since they don't plan to have their first game before noon or one o'clock anyway and add two hours at the end. But I think we should make sure the public is aware. I know where it is. And to do that, then the city as the applicant could simply file to amend the SUP on that condition to change that condition. Perfect. All through the process and you'll be all set. Perfect. Okay. I'll entertain That condition to change that condition perfect all through the process and you'll be all set perfect Okay, I'll entertain the motion for a journey all in favor the motion taken by the voting aye pose and a passing animously 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 of the same thing. I'm going to do it. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to make a little bit of the same. I'm going to do it. . Thank you.