City Council Meeting   8/2/2021

All right, everyone's here.

I have a brief moment of silence.

Thank you.

Robertson, would you do roll call please?

Mayor Walker?

Present.

Vice Mayor McGill?

Here.

Councillor Hill?

Here.

Here.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

All right.

I second.

Robertson would you call the vote please?

Mayor Walker?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McGill?

Yes.

Councilor Hill?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Counselors, are there any announcements?

a list of open board seats and applications to apply are also available at the James Madison or the JMRL Central Branch Library downtown library okay thank you any other announcements no all right any recognitions items for recognition

Robertson, would you read the consent agenda, please?

This item was first heard by council on June 19th.

All right.

Mr. Wheeler, I'll turn it over to you to see if there's any comments on the consent agenda.

Mayor Walker, I don't see any hands.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Robertson?

Mayor Walker?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McGill?

Yes.

Councilor Hill?

Yes.

And Councilor Snook?

Yes.

5-0.

Next up we have the city manager response to community matters and to counselors, Mr. Boyles

Mayor and Council, that's all that I have for you tonight.

Counselors, any comments?

And then we want her to submit a FOIA for the records is what you're saying.

You have a bit more history with this.

I have never seen a video and to my knowledge there is not one and that that has been the primary confusion of the years.

Councilors, any other questions or comments?

We didn't have any preregistered speakers today, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Wheeler for a request to speak.

Tanisha, you're on with counsel and you've got three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You've got three minutes.

Can everyone hear me?

We can.

Thank you.

Laura, you're on with Council, and you've got three minutes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Charles, you're on with Council, and you've got three minutes.

Thank you.

Adrienne, you're on with counsel and you've got three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You've got three minutes.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

You've got three minutes.

Thank you.

You've got three minutes.

I look forward to working with you to improve the land opportunities in the city.

Thank you.

You've got three minutes.

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands, Mayor Walker.

Counselors, any comments?

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Because last we asked, I think, Mr. Boyles, you said that they were considering it, but it hadn't been voted on by the Board of Supervisors.

It will just expand what the Legal Aid Justice Center will be able to do.

So that's why I think it's important that both jurisdictions are participating.

We hope so also.

the land use map and future zoning changes.

So what time is it?

So we'll keep going.

And it's the first of two readings.

The applicant is also present tonight and has prepared a short presentation.

Councilors, any questions or you want to wait until after Mr. Schimp's presentation?

I would like to wait until after.

Thank you all.

Thank you much for your time.

Counselors, questions?

each stage of this, could you just go through the number of units potential, both where we are today, where we would be with just the rezoning and where we will be with the special use permit, just both, not just a DUA, but actual unit count, just so I understand.

That was a long-winded way to answer your question, counselor.

You're welcome.

Go ahead, I'm sorry, tell me.

So you could have a smaller number of units, but more bedrooms.

Yeah, he kind of outlined that they're both 12 bedrooms, depending on how you do the math.

Yeah.

Correct.

Any other questions?

think that that is not something that is acceptable to tie in to a request when a developer is asking us to build more than they can build by right.

and so that has been there and so I agree I think it's important that we understand the impact and what can mitigate those impacts and that for me that has to do again with the walkability and what can we do to further support the walkability if we're going to be allowing for additional density and then obviously the parking continues to be a concern but that's why I feel like if we have to figure out one way or the other something to to ease I think some of that tension for the for the community

I just wonder what whether we've given any serious thought at the at the city level and NDS level as to as to what we what we want there.

On the other hand, the amenities need, which is infrastructure, you know, are usually reviewed as part of the application process to ensure that if the development is approved, it's not going to have a negative impact on the surrounding area.

So can I assume that you all have looked at this project and have concluded that it is not going to suppose any infrastructure problems, sidewalks, streets, etc.

Matt.

And when those were reviewed, there was found to be no impacts at this scale.

If we think we're going to be looking at 100 to 150 more units in that area, what do we need to be thinking about now so that it becomes possible to make that work?

And again, Mr. Duncan looks at the traffic and has had discussions on this in regards to the traffic impacts, which is still the primary driver from the code-driven standpoint of how we look at these things.

I'm just trying to think about how we should be thinking about this.

Can I jump in with a quick comment about this?

Sure.

So I just want to clear that up with what sidewalks were in question for the comments previously.

That's all.

Yeah, understood.

But it is certainly a reasonable concern.

if it's fully built out.

But it's essentially the trip generation estimates that they look at for the for this project.

I mean, it's a secondary road.

how you divide the responsibility for developing that or paying for that to facilitate this I mean that's the challenge of city planning I mean in a nutshell I hope that answered your question somewhat I mean it's hard because I just weigh in like

maybe aren't as emotionally invested because we haven't we've already been through this decision once and.

but again when it comes to this project I think it's just sort of one still providing parking spaces in a much lower impact than some of the buy right stuff we're going to see going forward while still providing workforce housing that again is below the median rent and half the monthly rent as some of these newer luxury apartments come in online I mean I like the idea of the infill project

Would this also, would this process trigger any contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund?

but they're not tripping section 3412 which is the affordable housing requirement where you would provide units or pay into it.

And this is a section that is according to where the new land use map is is being looked at for upzoning, correct?

Yeah, I mean, that's, I would say more intense, but not any zoning change at this point.

The land use map is looking at this area to increase the intensity and recommending later for the rezoning stuff.

Under the draft land use map is still being worked on, yes.

Yes, of course, draft with a capital D.

Mr. Shemp, how is that plan to be maintained?

Project that ends up with smaller rents.

So I'm asking with your company, how do you ensure that what it was built for, even though the market may make it otherwise, your company otherwise able to increase rent above that workforce level, how do you all ensure that in an area like Charlottesville?

Price increases or stop them completely.

Maybe.

There isn't really a thing that covers this other than simply approving a project that fits into the kind of missing middle small apartment design concept that's inherently more affordable than the luxury stuff that you see otherwise.

So when you are saying missing middle, what does that mean for you?

probably 10 units and below, 10 to 3, I think is what I think of as a missing middle project.

What does a missing middle income family earn?

And this has to fit in the market for those folks who want and need that sort of housing.

And so we need to be intentional when someone is saying that they are building for a person that we're just not talking about the amenities, what it's built out of, whether someone of higher income would come in looking at a new place and ask for something different.

I really do believe that a policy from City Council would sort of set that straight, and you would get more of what you expected if it was.

And I just think that a proffer could address those so that you could lead the way and how other developers could do that better.

But I've said my thoughts.

So anyway, I just want to throw that out there.

I think 80% is probably a workforce for a lot of people in the areas.

You're right.

I just want to clear that up.

Right.

If it's maintained, which wasn't answered clearly when I asked.

And if you are building relatively smaller apartments, they will be more nearly affordable than if you're building only 2000 square foot apartments.

Any other comments?

All right, so is there a motion for item six, approving the rezoning application?

I'll second the motion.

Robertson?

Yes, Mayor Walker?

No.

Vice Mayor Miguel.

Oh, is there my question about this?

I mean, I do feel like we need to talk about the SUP part.

Well, the way that it's been said here and then the planning commission meeting is that this only works if both are approved.

And we decide if we want to consent and maybe be discussed again, in which case I would want to discuss the SCP.

So the SUP is up for a vote tonight.

But we can't vote on the SUP for an R2.

Matt, can you help us?

And hopefully legal will jump in if I gave you wrong advice.

unless there's a motion on the table to deny.

I say let's vote on both of them next meeting.

I second that.

But I think we should still talk about this, what's possible in this SUP discussion or?

I think we have to wait, right?

Okay.

So if you're advancing it, is that the majority opinion of the city council to move the rezoning forward?

I think what we're saying is to move them both back to action items for the second meeting.

Rikofuna, it sounds like there is a majority of counselors who would vote for the rezoning.

All right.

Okay, so maybe I'm not clear on that.

but it sounds like we can't take a formal vote on the rezoning until our next meeting, which means we can't take a vote on the SUP until our next meeting because one leads to the other, but we can talk about them both.

Right.

No, I'm not either.

It's not an emergency situation anyway, so.

So they're approving the special use permit at 1206 Carlton Avenue.

I know we asked questions about both.

So essentially what the conditions in a special use permit are designed to do is mitigate whatever the impacts might be from what you could do by right versus the additional privileges that are granted by the special use permit.

There's also a setback request from 13 to 8 is what it was.

Do we want to talk about that now or do we want to talk about that next meeting?

But we're still effectively 10 or 11 feet from the property line of the actual next developable piece, which is a giant parking lot.

Where that large parking lot is?

You're facing the property to the left.

from the encroachment of the building.

Correct.

And nobody has any idea why that three-foot strip is even there?

That's my best guess.

What did you call it?

Spite.

Because it goes all the way from Leonard all the way over to Carlton based on the GIS.

It is a spite strip that was platted with the original subdivision plat when those lots were recorded back in the 20s or 30s.

Turns out in many cases the city actually owns it, but that's another story.

Are there any other questions?

All right.

So if these could be added back to action items.

Deja vu.

So it's

Thank you, Mr. Schemp, and thanks, staff.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

All right, call this meeting back to order.

Next up, we have a resolution approving critical slopes waiver for the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, South 1st Street, phase one project, one reading.

And the applicant team is also in attendance to answer questions and provide a presentation.

All right.

Would you like me to speak now, Mayor Walker?

Yes.

So that's where we landed and as you heard we had a unanimous vote to make this change.

Happy to answer questions.

with this project and that if we pass this now and staff is on site and there are complications or problems or something that's not being met, I'm right, that what will be the, how will it be addressed?

Do you want me to go ahead and provide some feedback or would you like Jack to address that question Mayor Walker?

I was asking for Jack to address it.

Yeah, no, and that's kind of what I was

It would be helpful for me to know if so, do we need to waive Section 4 if the intention is to build the first two buildings first?

It concerns me when the critical slopes document gets overly technical in a way that doesn't allow us to continue having flexibility with staff to collaborate on site, which I think is the more appropriate place for those technical decisions is with the technical staff members and contractors, et cetera.

Or is that something that needs to change today because it would negatively impact something?

And when you put this type of information in a city council document, it means that we have to return to city council every time new information is available versus just being able to be more nimble and make adjustments with staff as necessary.

guarantee the best of your ability obviously and your staff's ability that what we need out of this critical slope will be there.

But the timing and sequencing of that is outside of my control and understanding.

What are the biggest risks that we're talking about?

And then you have sort of the environmental impacts of that.

Like there's a nearby branch, Pollux branch?

you know there's the sunlight penetration into the water and everything else but the sediment both impacts the macroinvertebrates and plants that are in the stream from here down to the bay as well as carrying the physical pollutants that are in lots of our sediment that exist in urban area into the system both through the solute process and in the in the physical material themselves.

Are there any other questions?

The question that I've got is why did council think it was necessary to put this condition in the first place as opposed to simply saying, okay, Mr. Dawson, you're the boss.

Hopefully we can do a good job of making sure whatever mitigating factors are designed, we can inspect and can be carried out in the field.

to give the authority to, in this respect.

And if I can.

Okay.

and what they thought could make the project work and meet the requirements that the locality is supposed to meet based on the state requirements.

I'm perfectly happy for council to be the heavy if it's useful, but if it turns out to be burdensome, I would rather get us out of the picture.

So we're sorry about that, but let's add this to the list of zoning ordinance provisions that we think about when we eventually get there.

But to me, I've got confidence in Mr. Dawson, but if he wants us to have that requirement there so that everybody knows it, hey, I'm okay with that too.

Any other comments, questions?

So, is there...

developers come back in the future if you all put in a condition such as this or we vote on it and ask for us to waive it.

Yeah, to the, yeah, the general precedent certainly exists, but it's not a, again, this condition number four is not like plucked from list, it's tailored to this project for this instance.

and based on Ashley comments, our other option could also be to defer and if the issues that they thought would impact the project negatively come up, then it can come back to council and don't have to go before the planning commission.

I like that option.

Davies, what are your thoughts there?

It just helps us versus having to come back to city council.

Great.

deferring and if an emergency comes up then it could come back quickly and I'm sure that even if we had needed to have you know a special meeting or something they'll like things could be arranged but I'll let them share their thoughts and then we'll see.

But if that's the will of others, I'm open to deferrals, especially since it sounds like it's not like an immediate threat to the timeline or the ability of the project to move forward.

so if it's not going to negatively impact anything I think we'll be having a different discussion if you still felt the way you all.

Okay I think that makes sense and we will carry on and and all hope for the best thank you very much for your support and

You've already gone through the first set of hoops.

And so hopefully the concerns that have been there previously will be addressed more quickly and everybody will become more comfortable with the process.

Thank you.

All right, next up we have a resolution providing for the issuance and sale of general obligation refunding bonds in an aggregate principal amount and act to exceed $40 million providing for the form details and payment of such bonds and for the refunding of certain outstanding general obligation bonds of the city and it's one reading.

So that is what we're here to ask of you tonight.

All right.

Thank you.

Sergeant, could you explain a little bit more, because was it 900,000 or so last time too?

But right now, if things hold, we're looking at roughly a little over $900,000, so approximately about $100,000 a year in debt service savings on that one bond issue.

What is the interest rate on that one?

I'm sorry.

Any idea?

It's probably the coupons on those are probably somewhere between three and five percent.

And we're currently getting one point something?

So almost virtually free money to the large extent.

How is this reflected in the sheet that you show us annually?

Okay.

And $900,000 a year, I guess about $100,000 a year, is that right?

So that is truly in our pocket savings.

I was going to ask if there was fees kind of like when you refinance your house with closing costs and stuff, is there something like that with the reissuance?

And if, again, if the refunding does not accomplish at least the 3% debt service savings, we don't consider it viable option.

And how long does it take to complete the process?

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

We probably will look to bring before Council a similar resolution like this every year or include it with the annual appropriation just so we are in alignment to be able to take advantage of refunding savings as they come.

Absolutely.

So will the update, so you're saying just to have something kind of voted on so that you won't have to bring them before us?

New debt, we absolutely would be coming to council for those, but just for refunding is what we're asking for.

for the 10 years earlier.

it's to our benefit to continue to look at that and be able to take the advantage of that as it as it comes along as opposed to sort of doing that once a year.

So when will we receive an update if we if it's passed in that way?

And once either one of those are complete, we'll definitely report back to you on the results of that.

Like at what point will

So we would definitely keep you apprised and either, you know, Mr. Boyles through his weekly meetings with you would keep you in the loop on that as well.

All right.

Is there a motion?

Second.

Robinson.

Councilor Hill?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, next up we have a report under general business to update the reconstitution of services for city government operations.

Emily, Brian, Tina will ask you if you have any specifics that you would like to share or perhaps we can just answer questions.

That's the only thing I would add.

So are the 27 new cases in the Blue Ridge Health District, all six jurisdictions?

But in the moving average, the seven-day average is around 16.

So 16 of the 27 new cases were in Charlottesville?

That's correct.

Wow, okay.

Hopefully it's convincing them to get vaccinated, too.

We've set up city space with CARES money such that it's now a three camera broadcast ready facility much like council chambers and we're ready to put that to use for your meetings and other meetings like the PCRB and the Human Rights Commission.

We do feel like it's time to make that next step.

So we're just asking that you stay alert and just be prepared to still continue those meetings virtually if necessary.

so just want to thank you for the heavy lift to pull all those details together for us to consider and again we'll be in a holding pattern until we can really look at that more seriously so thank you.

Dr. Bonds and her team will be doing on this Thursday, which should be enlightening.

And I just hope that we can be consistent in telling people that we are prioritizing safety, even if some of our citizens are gonna be upset with us.

And I hope that people will get vaccinated.