City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Regular Meeting

Transcription

1 City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Item # City Council Meeting 8d 10/10/2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Robert Sisson, City Manager Public hearing and Council action on a blight determination and abatement plan for property located at 3404 Country Hill Drive City Council is asked to consider a finding of blight and recommendations for blight abatement on a property located at 3404 Country Hill Drive. SUMMARY: On March 25, 1997, City council adopted an ordinance to provide for abatement of blighting conditions. In accordance with the procedures outlined in that ordinance, on September 11, 2017, the Planning Commission found that the property located at 3404 Country Hill Drive is blighted and recommended that City Council affirm this finding and approve a plan for abatement. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a plan to demolish the structure, restore the original grade, seed the disturbed soil to prevent erosion and ensure that the grass is mowed regularly. The owner began a large addition to the house several years ago, construction has been suspended for several months and the permits have expired. The structure is open to the weather and has become dilapidated and is detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community. An alternative plan, also considered by the Planning Commission, would have included completing the exterior work on the house to make it weathertight in accordance with the owner s plans. The cost to execute this work would have been in excess of $125,000 and was deemed too costly in relation to the potential benefit. FISCAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION: RESPONSIBLE STAFF/ POC: COORDINATION: Funds expended in abating the blight will be secured by a lien against the subject property. A bid of approximately $28,000 has been received for the work. At least two additional bids would be sought prior to action being taken. That City Council affirm the Planning Commission s finding of blight and recommendations for abatement. City Council may affirm, modify or reject the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission or may defer action to a later date. Andrew Wilson, Director of Code Administration Community Development and Planning City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report presented to Planning Commission on September 11, 2017 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of September 11, 2017 Sample Motions

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 Approved: September 25, 2017 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING/WORK SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF FAIRFAX CITY HALL, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA September 11, 2017 After determining that a quorum was present, Chairman Cunningham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Chairman Paul Cunningham and Commissioners Tom Armstrong, Tom Burrell, Dennis Cate, Joseph Harmon, Janet Jaworski and Karen Wheeler-Smith. Member(s) Absent: None. Staff Present: Cindy Petkac, Division Chief; Wendy Block-Sanford, Transportation Director; Andrew Wilson, Assistant Chief, Building Official/Fire Marshal and Tina Gillian, Secretary. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Cunningham led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Discussion/Adoption of Agenda. MS. JAWORSKI MOVED TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY MR. CATE, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Presentations by the public on any matter not calling for a public hearing. No one from the audience came forward to speak. 4. Approval of Minutes: a. Consideration of the July 24, 2017 Meeting Minutes. MR. HARMON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY MS. WHEELER-SMITH, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Consent Agenda None. 6. Items Not Requiring a Public Hearing None. a. Resolution in support of Two-Year Transportation Program. 1

24 Approved: September 25, 2017 Ms. Wendy Block-Sanford presented the staff report which has been incorporated into the record by reference. She said the request tonight is for the Planning Commission to endorse the list of potential transportation projects and offer any comments or suggestions to City Council on top priorities for funding. She stated the two-year transportation program is a short-term work plan to implement the City s long-term transportation vision as described in the draft Multimodal Transportation Plan. She said the transportation plan is needed so the city can prioritize transportation projects and take advantage of all the different funding sources. She reviewed the 2-year transportation funding timeline for application submissions. She displayed a chart showing staff s recommendations on proposed projects and their eligible funding sources. She displayed a map of the city that depicts the location of the proposed projects, which are listed below: Old Lee Highway Multimodal Improvements (Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements) George T. Snyder Trail Completion Judicial Drive Trail Completion Bike Share (in partnership with GMU) University Drive (south of Fairfax Blvd) improvements Pedestrian Network Safety Spot Improvements Transit Facility Improvements Transportation Demand Program Jermantown Road Widening (Between Fairfax Blvd and Route 66) Eaton Place/Chain Bridge Road Intersection Improvements Additional Roadway Network in Northfax West of Chain Bridge Road Roadbed Reconstruction She reviewed the citywide mailer sent to city residents. She provided a handout that listed the ten comments received to date in response to the mailer. She stated the comments received were positive. She reviewed the public outreach process that began in June of Tonight she is asking for comments on the transportation program from the Planning Commission, their concurrence on the proposed applications for FY18 and FY19 and for consideration of the resolution of support. Mr. Armstrong stated the Jermantown project is dependent on Fairfax County s bridge extension. He asked if staff is in sync with Fairfax County s funding and whether VDOT is involved. Ms. Block-Sanford stated that current VDOT plans show the bridge over Jermantown Road as being rebuilt/replaced with a two lane bridge as part of the I-66 Outside the Beltway project. She said the City of Fairfax has asked for the bridge to be widened to four lanes in anticipation of future road widening in the City of Fairfax. She said the Toll Concessionaire is paying the Commonwealth $500 million dollars for use on projects that benefit toll payers. She said the City of Fairfax and Fairfax County have submitted an application for use of these dollars to widen the 2

25 Approved: September 25, 2017 bridge to four lanes. Mr. Armstrong asked if a project is listed in the two year plan in anticipation of it being completed in two years or started in two years. Ms. Block-Sanford said it is listed in anticipation of applying for funding within the next two years. Ms. Jaworski asked for an example of a pedestrian network safety spot improvement. Ms. Block-Sanford said an example would be to install a bump out or flashing lights at difficult intersections. She said these type of improvements require larger funding than can be accommodated within an operating budget. Ms. Jaworski asked if bus shelters are part of transit facility improvements. Ms. Block-Sanford stated yes and the bus shelters are to be funded with I-66 Inside the Beltway project funds. She said funds would be used to upgrade existing shelters or provide additional shelters. Ms. Jaworski said there is currently a bus shelter that blocks the view of oncoming traffic for anyone stopped at the intersection of University Drive and making a right onto Fairfax Boulevard. She asked if a site distance problem such as this would be looked at as part of transit facility improvements. Ms. Block-Sanford said this would fall into that funding. She said for current site distance problems its best to notify her. Ms. Jaworski said everything on the list seems like worthy projects. She said she has personal interest in the Old Lee Highway pedestrian improvements project since she lives in that area. Mr. Cate asked if walk signals could be programmed to start before a green light activates, giving pedestrians a head start for greater visibility. He said this is a problem for students who try to cross over Rebel Run Road. Ms. Block-Sanford said the city has leading pedestrian signals in some locations in the city. Mr. Cate asked for the crossing on Rebel Run to be looked at for this type of signal timing change. As for prioritization, he likes projects that promote safety and ADA compliance. He would also like to see projects the city would never be able to afford or the projects that are consistently listed in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to be prioritized in hopes of using transportation funding instead of CIP funding for these projects. 3

26 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Harmon asked whether the circular chart depicting the 2-year transportation funding timeline can help with prioritization of the projects in terms of funding requests. Ms. Block-Sanford stated the chart represents a generic guide to the timing of funding. Mr. Harmon asked if that means a project would not fall into a particular funding request cycle. Ms. Block-Sanford said it would once it is matched to a funding source. Mr. Harmon asked if the projects listed in the staff report can be prioritized based on the funding cycle. Ms. Block-Sanford displayed the matching funds chart and explained the size of the funding may shorten or lengthen the funding request timeline. Mr. Harmon said it would be helpful if the Planning Commission were given an understanding (based on the matching funds chart) of the fiscal year a project should be considered. Mr. Burrell said the circular chart is really a process chart. He said he does not want to prioritize a road project with a trail project since they are too different. He asked why the first project listed on the matching funds chart is listed as already being funded. Ms. Block-Sanford said the project has received some CIP funding for preliminary work. Mr. Burrell asked if all the projects on the matching funds chart would be removed if the city received all the funds being requested. Ms. Block-Sanford said that would be correct, however, she does not anticipate receiving full funding of all the requests. Mr. Burrell said prioritized projects should be funded through the CIP process to avoid delays in alternative funding. Mr. Cunningham thanked Ms. Block-Sanford for her efforts in seeking alternative funding to save taxpayer money. He said a tradeoff for outside funding is that projects may be delayed a few years to be completed. He asked whether effort is made to marry up additional funding sources from other categories or if there is a timing issue when using that process. Ms. Block-Sanford said the funding does not marry up well. She said there are also requirements on the funding sources such as revenue sharing. Mr. Burrell said it would be helpful for City Council to be shown where there is consistency 4

27 Approved: September 25, 2017 between the Transportation Plan and the CIP. At this time, MR. HARMON MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER PC AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT A, FINDING THAT THE PROJECTS PROPOSED IN THE TWO YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS IN THE DRAFT MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER FOR FUNDING THE PROJECTS CONTAINED THEREIN WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff provide the list that was included in the staff report, listed out by anticipated funding year. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. WHEELER-SMITH. MR. CATE MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD AN INDICATION OF WHICH PROJECTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN). THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY MR. HARMON AND MS. WHEELER-SMITH. THE MOTION, WITH THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearings - a. Findings and recommendations regarding blighted conditions on property located at 3404 Country Hill Drive, otherwise known as tax map parcel , and consideration of the city s plan to abate the blight as follows: Option One: Demolish the structure and restore the topography to the previous grades and place seed and straw over bare soil. Remove any stored construction materials from the site and dispose of them in an appropriate manner. Option Two: Have an engineer examine the condition of the structure, which was not built in accordance with approved plans; if found to be structurally sound, complete the exterior envelope of the structure, to include roof shingles, siding, windows, doors, soffit etc., to make the structure weathertight, secure and to eliminate the nuisance; install stormwater mitigation measures in accordance with the submitted plans; stabilize disturbed soils and remove any remaining construction materials. 5

28 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Wilson presented the staff report which has been incorporated into the record by reference. He stated this case involves a property that has been to the Planning Commission before. He said the homeowner began construction on a fairly extensive addition to the home without securing the proper building permits. He said the construction was incomplete and there were issues with RPA mitigation and other matters. He said the property was brought forward to the Planning Commission for a preliminary blight determination in At that time, the blight determination was withdrawn because the property owner had obtained permits and signed a statement indicating he would commit to making progress on the property. He said construction stalled on the project late last year and the homeowner was notified in June of this year that the building permits were revoked due to inactivity. He said the City Manager also sent a letter to the property owner advising that he was making a preliminary determination of blight and that the homeowner was required to submit a plan to abate the blight within thirty (30) days, which would be late July Mr. Wilson said he received an from the property owner in early July, however, it had no plan associated with it and no further contact has occurred until today. He said this is a difficult case because the homeowner did make significant progress on the property. He said he believes the homeowner will speak to the Planning Commission tonight and will ask for additional time to complete the project, however, given the length of time this has gone on, he has a hard time supporting the homeowner s request. He reviewed the estimates received to remove the structure ($20,810.00) and to properly enclose the structure/install the windows ($109,334.00). He then answered the following questions received from Ms. Jaworski via 1. Has Mr. Landivar been paying the real estate taxes? Answer: Real estate taxes are current as of today with the next payment due Dec. 5, For Option Two - Do we have any idea how much the real estate assessment would decrease due to the structure being uninhabitable? Answer: Tax assessor s office said it would approximately remain the same, however, in this case there are no comparable properties to assess in order to give an accurate figure. 3. How does the structure deviate from the approved plans? Answer: Have not been able to access the property to formally conduct an inspection, however, staff believes some of the framing and structural details are different from the plans and the materials being used may be unsuitable. It is possible an engineer did assist in the design, however, no way to know for sure. 4. If Option Two is chosen, what is the likelihood that the homeowner will complete the inside to make it habitable? Answer: The homeowner will address this when he comes to speak before the Planning Commission. 5. If the Planning Commission determines the property is blighted and choses an option, is that the only option City Council can consider or can they still look at both options? Answer: City Council may affirm, modify or reject the Planning Commission s recommendations. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation tonight, he estimates that City Council would hear this matter on October 10 th. This would allow the 6

29 Approved: September 25, 2017 homeowner a month to change the circumstances and present to the Council. 6. Will the neighbors weigh in on the project? Answer: Neighbors can come forward to speak for themselves. Mr. Cate asked what the likelihood is that there will be other issues, such as mold, since the structure has remained open to the elements. Mr. Wilson said it is quite possible other issues will be present. Ms. Wheeler-Smith asked if Option Two is only to make the exterior more acceptable to the eye. Mr. Wilson said it will protect the structure and make it aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Harmon asked if the home is currently unoccupied. Mr. Wilson said that is correct. Mr. Harmon asked how long the home has remained unoccupied. Mr. Wilson said he believes a year. Mr. Harmon asked for clarification that the property has not appeared before City Council before now. Mr. Wilson said it has not. Mr. Burrell asked if Option Two will bring the construction of the structure up to code. Mr. Wilson said yes. The home would not be habitable but it would be protected. Mr. Armstrong asked whether there are approved plans for this property. Mr. Wilson said there are approved plans, however, roof framing and other structural detail changes may have occurred. Mr. Armstrong said he is trying to figure out what conditions another buyer would have to deal with if the Planning Commission chooses Option Two. He asked if the utilities have been turned off. Mr. Wilson said he does not believe the electricity has been turned off. Mr. Armstrong asked whether the issues with the RPA have been addressed. 7

30 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Wilson said the owner presented a mitigation plan, however, those measures have not been installed. Ms. Jaworski asked how much of the $109K will cover engineering services. Mr. Wilson said the $109K is strictly for the contractor costs, not an engineer. Ms. Jaworski said this means the amount could go higher depending on what a structural engineer concludes from an inspection. Mr. Wilson said that is possible. He said if the cost became significantly more expensive he would return to City Council to present the new figure. Mr. Cunningham noted the existing structure is encapsulated within the new structure and he asked whether the roof on the existing structure remains. Mr. Wilson said the old roof was removed as the new structure was built over it. Mr. Cunningham asked if a new roof would be part of the cost to return the structure to its original condition. Mr. Wilson said yes, that would be part of the complete reframing/roofing. Ms. Jaworski asked for clarification on the two options presented. Mr. Wilson said either the entire structure comes down or the exterior work is completed on the entire addition. He said the Planning Commission can choose to make a different recommendation. Mr. Cunningham asked if the basement will be filled in if the original structure is razed. Mr. Wilson said the walls will be taken down to two feet below grade and the grade on the property will be restored. Mr. Cunningham asked for clarification that the existing basement would be filled in. Mr. Wilson said yes. At this time, Mr. Cunningham asked if the property owner would like to come forward and address the Planning Commission. 8

31 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Fernando Landivar, property owner, came forward to address the Planning Commission. He stated he has had several personal problems over the past year. He said he is in the process of talking to engineers to evaluate the structure. He said the only changes made were to the roof and the changes were recommended by an engineer. He said they are waiting on the sale of another lot in order to complete this project. He said the main issue is to have the electrical moved by Dominion in order to complete the framing. Ms. Jaworski asked for clarification on the property that is for sale. Mr. Landivar said it is another property that is owned by his father. Ms. Jaworski asked what the likelihood is that Mr. Landivar is in a financial position to complete the interior of the home should the Planning Commission choose Option Two. Mr. Landivar said once the other property sells he will be able to complete the outside and inside of the structure. Ms. Jaworski asked if his property is currently mortgaged through a bank. Mr. Landivar said he is working to remove it from foreclosure status with his bank. Ms. Jaworski asked what point of the foreclosure process the property is in at this time. Mr. Landivar said it is in the final stages of loan modification. Mr. Cunningham said he does not have information on the property for sale so the Planning Commission cannot determine if this is a short term or long term issue. He asked Mr. Landivar what steps he could take within a reasonable timeframe that would lead the Planning Commission to recommend one option over the other. Mr. Landivar said a ninety (90) day extension would allow him time to sell his father s property and complete the structure. Mr. Cunningham said in 2015 there was a plan put in place and the determination of blight was withdrawn. He said progress on the project should be made every six months to keep the building permits active, however, it appears there has been no activity in the past year according to Mr. Wilson. He asked Mr. Landivar what he believes is a viable option for moving the project forward. Mr. Landivar stated he would like a ninety (90) day extension to allow him to hire contractors to make the structure weathertight. 9

32 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Cunningham asked if there is a plan in place to make the structure habitable. Mr. Landivar stated most of the structure is weathertight. The only portions exposed are on the front north and south side of the house. Mr. Cunningham said there are mold and structural issues that remain to be addressed. Mr. Landivar said he would hire an engineer to address these issues within the ninety (90) day extension. Mr. Cunningham said part of the discussion two years ago was that the worksite should be kept clean. He said the site is currently not being kept clean. He said he hopes the goal for this property is to make it habitable and not just weathertight. He asked if there is a plan in place to do this. Mr. Landivar said yes. After he finishes the structure, he plans on moving into it. Mr. Cunningham asked if the floodplain remediation will be included, since this was agreed to two years ago but has not been completed. Mr. Landivar said he will complete the remediation after the exterior structure has been completed. Mr. Cunningham asked if there is a reason to wait on taking care of the remediation. Mr. Landivar said he could do both projects side by side if needed. Mr. Cate asked if Mr. Landivar would be precluded from performing interior work to make the structure habitable should the Planning Commission recommend Option Two. Mr. Landivar said that would depend on the cost since the city s estimates are pretty high compared to other contractor s quotes he has seen. Mr. Burrell asked for clarification on which property is in foreclosure. Mr. Landivar said 3404 Country Hill Drive. Mr. Burrell said he does not see Mr. Landivar being able to complete the interior of the home should the Planning Commission recommend Option Two since a lien would be placed on the property. At this time, Mr. Cunningham opened the public hearing for comments from the public. 10

33 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Scott Joy, Cleveland Street came forward to address the Planning Commission. He said he tried to access the Multimodal Transportation website and the page was blank. Mr. Cunningham said this matter should have been addressed at an earlier agenda item and referred the question to staff. Ms. Petkac said she will follow up on the issue for Mr. Joy. At this time, Mr. Steve Landivar, 9910 Farr Drive, Fairfax, VA came forward to address the Planning Commission. He said he was the brother of Fernando Landivar and is in charge of selling the lot referred to earlier. He said the property is listed for $534, which would provide enough funding to complete the structure. He recommends an Option Three that would allow Mr. Landivar an extension of time. He said the contractor estimates provided to the city are really high in his opinion, since he comes from a construction background himself. He said his brother is a single father and has been out of work for quite some time. He said his brother is now working and will do what is needed to get his house up and running so his family can move in. Mr. Cunningham asked if there is a reasonable expectation of when the lot will sell. Mr. Landivar stated the lot received over nine hundred views during the first four days of the MRL listing. He said he is very confident the property should sell within the next thirty days or so. Mr. Cunningham asked if the listing is a recent listing. He asked who the property belongs to and where it is located. Mr. Landivar said he is the trustee for the property and the lot was put up for sale within the past couple of weeks to help with this issue. Mr. Cunningham asked if the lot is free and clear and not encumbered. Mr. Landivar said yes, there is more than enough room in the price. Mr. Burrell asked if there is a house on the property. Mr. Landivar said there is not a house on the property, which is a selling point because developers are saving money for not having to demo a structure. Mr. Cunningham asked if anyone else in the audience would like to address the Planning Commission on this matter. Seeing no one, Mr. Cunningham closed the public hearing and opened the matter for discussion by the Planning Commission. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Wilson what the general timeframe would be to complete construction 11

34 Approved: September 25, 2017 of the home. Mr. Wilson said three to six months would be a reasonable timeframe. Mr. Burrell asked if the neighbors and civic association were notified and if there were any comments received from the notifications. Mr. Wilson said yes the entities had been notified. He said no comments had been received. At this time, Pamela Petrie, 3402 Country Hill Drive, Fairfax, VA came forward to address the Planning Commission. She questioned if the reason there is no longer a structure on the property for sale is because of the same circumstances as the property next to hers. Mr. Cunningham said the Planning Commission does not have access to that information and her question should have been presented while the public hearing was open. He then asked Mr. Wilson whether the sale of the property had been coordinated with his Office. Mr. Wilson said the property had been mentioned before and the father mentioned it to him today, however, no formal plan incorporating the sale of the property in order to complete the subject property has been presented to him. Mr. Cunningham said it is a last minute verbal presentation as opposed to a structured program. He said there is a cloud over the funds since Mr. Landivar s brother has indicated this was not Mr. Fernando Landivar s money. Mr. Wilson said if the Planning Commission should make a determination to grant Mr. Landivar an extension it should be for thirty (30) days at which time a progress report on the sale of the property can be obtained. Mr. Cunningham asked if Mr. Landivar indicated that the yard will be maintained properly. Mr. Wilson said the lawn was mowed today. He said there are a couple of vehicles on the property. Mr. Cate asked how quickly a contractor could be mobilized by the city to finish the work on the structure. He is trying to determine the length of time for the city to perform the work versus the ninety (90) day extension Mr. Landivar is requesting to do the work himself. Mr. Wilson said additional estimates will be required per the city s procurement regulation and access to the property will need to be granted either through Mr. Landivar s consent or a court order. 12

35 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Harmon asked whether Mr. Landivar would be precluded from working on the property during the time between the Planning Commission s recommendation to City Council and the public hearing. Mr. Wilson said the building permits have been revoked so Mr. Landivar would need to arrange the reinstatement of the permits. Mr. Cate stated that City Council should be made aware of the foreclosure status and where the city lien for work performed would be priority wise. Mr. Wilson said he has asked the City Attorney about this and the attorney is working on the title search at this time. He said the mortgage company is not under any obligation to sell the property for an amount greater than what is owed to them. Ms. Wheeler-Smith asked for clarification of which property is being foreclosed on. Mr. Cunningham said this property (3404 Country Hill Drive) is in foreclosure. He asked Mr. Wilson whether the information presented is enough for the Planning Commission to take an action tonight or should the Planning Commission defer the item. Mr. Wilson said the intent of his conversation with the City Attorney is to have the information before City Council takes action. Mr. Cunningham asked the Planning Commission whether they are comfortable making a recommendation to City Council at this time or do they want to continue the matter. Mr. Armstrong asked if Mr. Wilson has discussed with the City Attorney whether Option One could still go forward if the property is in foreclosure. Mr. Wilson said he has and the City Attorney is researching the answer now. Mr. Burrell asked if the city will be precluded from tearing the house down if the property is foreclosed upon and the bank owns it, since Mr. Landivar will no longer be the owner of the property. Mr. Wilson said if the foreclosure process is completed, the city will be dealing with the bank. He said the city has dealt with banks before during the foreclosure crisis. Mr. Cate said he is leaning toward a recommendation of a thirty (30) day extension or Option Two with a public hearing date of October 25th to allow events such as the sale of the property to occur. 13

36 Approved: September 25, 2017 Mr. Burrell does not agree with time constraints on Option Two. His recommendation is for Option One and if the homeowner is serious about a mitigation plan he can present that to City Council. Ms. Jaworski agrees with Mr. Burrell and would recommend Option One and is not in favor of giving additional time. Mr. Harmon said he would recommend Option Two in order to let City Council fix the property on their timeframe. He does not recommend leveling the property. Ms. Jaworski said her understanding is that even if the Planning Commission recommends Option One, City Council can change that recommendation to Option Two. She is not opposed to Option Two, however, she is opposed to deferring the matter. She believes it should be on the earliest docket date for City Council. Mr. Cate said deferring the matter for thirty (30) days was thrown out just as a possibility. He said he would be okay with Option Two with an October 10 th docket date. Mr. Cunningham said the city is in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan and one of the major issues being looked at is maintaining the character of the neighborhoods. He said the house constructed at Sager and Addison is out of character with the surrounding properties but is an extremely energy efficient and modern design that was carried to fruition. He said in Mr. Landivar s instance, he is building a large house that looks like it goes right to the setbacks on either side and makes no provision for a driveway or garage which is a standard amenity for larger homes. It is his right to do this, however, it is his responsibility to carry the construction to fruition. He agrees with Ms. Jaworski and Mr. Burrell that the lot should be returned to a basic lot in order to be redeveloped. He is recommending Option One and his recommendation to Mr. Landivar is to do everything in his power to make all the other options discussed tonight come into focus and be taken to City Council. At this time, MR. BURRELL STATED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIND THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3404 COUNTRY HILL DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF FAIRFAX, TAX MAP NUMBER , IS BLIGHTED; THAT THE OWNER HAS FAILED TO CURE THE BLIGHT; THAT THE STAFF PROPOSED PLAN DESIGNATED AS OPTION 1, DEMOLITION, FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY (DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2017) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCES AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS; AND THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT THESE FINDINGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND 14

37 Approved: September 25, 2017 RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED WORK PLAN BE ADOPTED AND THAT THE CITY OF FAIRFAX PLACE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY TO RECOVER THE COST OF EXECUTING THE WORK PLAN. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. JAWORSKI. THE MOTION WAS CARRIED BY A VOTE OF FIVE (5) AYES AND TWO (2) NAYS, WITH MR. CATE AND MR. HARMON VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. 8. Adjourn Regular Meeting. 9. Work Session: a. Discussion of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan Draft Actions and Metrics. Ms. Petkac presented the staff report which has been incorporated into the record by reference. 10. Reconvene Regular Meeting. 11. Staff Report. Ms. Petkac reminded the Planning Commission of the Panel Discussion scheduled for this Saturday at the Stacy C. Sherwood Center. 12. Commission Comments. Ms. Wheeler-Smith No comments. Mr. Harmon Asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of the events that occurred on September 11, After the moment of silence, Mr. Cunningham also recognized the victims of the current natural disasters (hurricanes Harvey & Irma). Mr. Cate Stated he had the opportunity to drive musicians from the Fairfax High School Marching Band around the city for Tag Day. He said the musicians gained a real life learning experience while collecting the needed funds and he encouraged others to volunteer to drive next year. Mr. Burrell No comments. Mr. Armstrong No comments. Ms. Jaworski Reminded everyone of the special election set for tomorrow (9/12) to elect a 15

38 Approved: September 25, 2017 new City Council member and she encouraged everyone to get out and vote. She reminded folks to be careful on the roads since school is now back in session. Mr. Cunningham He also encouraged citizens to vote in tomorrow s election. 13. Adjournment. Meeting Adjourned at: 8:56 p.m. ATTEST: Tina Gillian Tina Gillian, Secretary 16

39 SAMPLE MOTIONS TO AFFIRM PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF BLIGHT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE PROPERTY AT 3404 COUNTRY HILL DRIVE IS BLIGHTED; THAT THE OWNER HAS FAILED TO CURE THE BLIGHT OR PRESENT A REASONABLE PLAN TO DO SO; THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE DISPOSITIONOF THE PROPERTY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2017, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ORDINANCES AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS; AND THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE PROPOSED WORK PLAN DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT BE ADOPTED AND THAT THE CITY PLACE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY TO RECOVER THE COST OF EXECUTING THE WORK PLAN. TO MODIFY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF BLIGHT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION I MOVE THAT CITY COUNCIL MODIFY THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING BLIGHT AT 3404 COUNTRY HILL DRIVE AS FOLLOWS: (CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE MODIFICATIONS) TO REJECT PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF BLIGHT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REJECT THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING BLIGHT AT 3404 COUNTRY HILL DRIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE REASONS) TO DEFER ACTION ON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS TO A LATER DATE I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DEFER ACTION ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING BLIGHT AT 3404 COUNTRY HILL DRIVE UNTIL: (CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DATE)