City Council Meeting   5/5/2008

ANNOUNCEMENTS

• • 00:00:00
    Great.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:00:17
    I thought that's...
  • 00:00:30
    I agree with the intent, I just want to make sure it's legal.
  • 00:00:58
    I'd like to call this meeting to order.
  • 00:01:12
    We're going to start with the plunge of allegiance.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 00:01:26
    Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:01:32
    Ms. Kochis, would you call the roll, please?
• • SPEAKER_24
  • 00:01:34
    Here.
  • 00:01:36
    Here.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:01:39
    Here.
  • 00:01:42
    Thank you all.
  • 00:01:43
    We're going to start with some announcements and I've got a few I'd like to make myself and then we'll open up to other counselors.
  • 00:01:47
    First of all, tomorrow night there are two events happening in the same building, in the same room even, regarding the future of our community that we encourage the public to attend.
  • 00:01:57
    One is a master plan open house.
  • 00:02:00
    This regards the master planning process that's been underway over the last number of months for the west side of McIntire Park.
  • 00:02:07
    That's going to take place tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, May 6, from 3.30 to 7.30 p.m.
  • 00:02:12
    in the Charlottesville Community Design Center space in the Market Street parking garage off the downtown mall.
  • 00:02:20
    Tomorrow evening from 5 to 8 p.m. is a water supply work session and again open to the public.
  • 00:02:27
    Again, also it's in the city space which is in the same room, same building next to the Charlottesville Community Design Center in the Market Street parking garage.
  • 00:02:40
    On May 19th, just so everybody knows how the process is going to unfold regarding the water supply, so tomorrow night is a work session.
  • 00:02:47
    We're going to have a whole lot of information presented and a little bit of council discussion, but there will not be opportunity tomorrow night for public comment.
  • 00:02:55
    We have a separate public hearing just on the water supply issue where we'll allow anybody to come and speak your mind on the water supply issue at our next city council meeting Monday, May 19th, which starts at 7 p.m.
  • 00:03:08
    We will not be taking a vote that night on the water supply itself.
  • 00:03:13
    We will be taking a vote at the June 2nd meeting of City Council, where we will also have the first meeting on our water rates for next year.
  • 00:03:22
    Any other announcements or other business to be added at the end of the agenda?
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 00:03:28
    I have a couple.
  • 00:03:29
    At the end of the meeting, I'd like to bring up something that I learned about at a meeting last week of the Virginia Municipal League on its Go Green seminars about the energy efficiency and conservation
  • 00:03:45
    Block Grant, which was passed by Congress last year, and it turns out the same way we get Block Grant money for infrastructure needs, this will give us Block Grant money, the ability to apply for Block Grant money for energy issues, our green initiatives.
  • 00:04:01
    It looks like we might be in line for as much as $120,000, and there's some steps we need to take, so I'll bring that up later.
  • 00:04:07
    The second thing in terms of announcements, I want to ask Mr. Huja if it isn't
  • 00:04:12
    this coming Saturday that the UNJAM meeting is going to be.
  • 00:04:17
    Is it Monticello High School?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 00:04:19
    Monticello High School, 830.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 00:04:21
    830 in the morning and that's to work on a transportation plan.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:04:28
    Thank you Dr. Brown.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 00:04:29
    Any other announcements?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:04:32
    I also had a couple things to be added at the end of the agenda.
  • 00:04:35
    One is a resolution, consideration of a resolution encouraging the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to include enhanced passenger rail service on the 29 corridor.
  • 00:04:47
    That's a time-sensitive resolution given the decision-making process that's underway now at the state level.
  • 00:04:52
    And secondly is a resolution regarding the city manager's employment agreement for the coming fiscal year.
  • 00:05:00
    We will now move on to matters by the public.
  • 00:05:03
    And we have a number of people that have signed up to speak tonight.
  • 00:05:07
    And again, as always, we ask you to keep your comments to three minutes and give your name and address when you come up to speak.
  • 00:05:13
    And the first speaker is Mr. Joe Mooney.
• • SPEAKER_15
  • 00:05:24
    Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councillors.
  • 00:05:25
    My name is Joe Mooney.
  • 00:05:26
    I live at 201 Sunset Avenue in the city.
  • 00:05:29
    A purpose that I would like to bring to your attention.
  • 00:05:37
    Let's start all over again.
  • 00:05:38
    What I would like to bring to your attention
  • 00:05:41
    Tonight is a letter which I distributed to council members and others from Mr. William Crutchfield.
  • 00:05:48
    It was written to the hook and it was somewhat buried in a link to the hook news internet site, but I would like
  • 00:06:03
    Not only your attention to this issue, but I think every citizen in Charlottesville and in the county needs to read Mr. Crutchfield's letter.
  • 00:06:12
    I think that this community
  • 00:06:14
    owes him a great debt of gratitude for taking the time, the effort, and the thought that he put into writing the letter and observing how we are doing things in this community.
  • 00:06:26
    It's a painful letter for many people to read, but I think that if you intend to know what's going on in city government, in county government,
  • 00:06:35
    You need to get a copy of this letter.
  • 00:06:38
    I don't know whether it will be published in full in The Hook this week.
  • 00:06:42
    I hope that it will.
  • 00:06:44
    The only thing that I would like to do right now is I will leave copies
  • 00:06:50
    Collette Hall
• • SPEAKER_28
  • 00:07:15
    Colette Hall, 101 Robertson Lane, President of the Board of NDIA, the Neighborhood Association from North Downtown.
  • 00:07:24
    In 2001, I sat on the Historic Preservation Committee, which was tasked to rewrite or revise the historic designation ordinance.
  • 00:07:33
    One of our recommendations after a citywide bus tour was to increase the designation of the ADCD, the Architectural Design Control Districts.
  • 00:07:42
    to several more buildings and residential streets in particular.
  • 00:07:46
    We suggest that Second Street Northeast is one of these streets.
  • 00:07:51
    Recently before the BAR, a request was made to build at what will be 509 Second Street Northeast.
  • 00:07:57
    The building is a modern design firm.
  • 00:08:00
    At the city website, I viewed photos of properties on Second Street Northeast under the PDF entitled Downtown Control District Study, Section 5, Second Street Northeast.
  • 00:08:12
    The proposed building at 509 Second Street in no way resembles, in any way enhances, or complements the other properties on Second Street as an ADCD.
  • 00:08:26
    I am under the impression that the designation ADCD stipulates or at least encourages a certain type of building and at least it makes an attempt at preserving the architectural fabric of the neighborhood which this building does not.
  • 00:08:39
    The ADCD document states, and I quote, to ensure that new buildings, additions and landscapes will be in harmony with the existing character.
  • 00:08:49
    One design shows trees planted in the front, but I have not seen the most recent design.
  • 00:08:55
    If trees are scheduled to be added, would it not be subject to section 20-162, quote, street state trees of the new subdivision ordinance, which you passed at the last city council meeting, replacing chapter 29 of city code?
  • 00:09:13
    The trees are planned by design close to the public sidewalks, then I ask the applicant to consult with Tim Hughes, City Forester.
  • 00:09:21
    Mr. Hughes has written a master tree list which was approved by the Planning Commission and is available from the City website.
  • 00:09:28
    The North Downtown Neighborhood Association supports the neighbors' appeal.
  • 00:09:34
    And since the agenda
  • 00:09:37
    I was speaking on the topic which you mentioned we will not talk about tonight.
  • 00:09:44
    So I have a question about the consent agenda.
  • 00:09:46
    I just want some clarity.
  • 00:09:48
    The first one says appropriation $2500 energy audit incentive grant, second of two readings.
  • 00:09:55
    And then further down item nine, ordinance
  • 00:09:59
    I was wondering when the council made the remarks, if you could clarify the difference between those.
  • 00:10:08
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:10:09
    Thank you, Ms. Hall.
  • 00:10:10
    Peter Clingman.
• • SPEAKER_21
  • 00:10:20
    Good evening, Council.
  • 00:10:21
    I'm Peter Kleeman.
  • 00:10:22
    I live at 407 Head Street in the city, and I'm here to talk about the issue of the pond design for the Mack... for the... what is it called?
  • 00:10:32
    The McIntyre Road extended.
  • 00:10:35
    There was an item in the agenda packet that had the draft of the pond design, and since I want to see how that fit within the rest of the design, I have my ongoing working graphic.
  • 00:10:47
    I don't usually bring graphics, but
  • 00:10:51
    If you look at the graphic, this is the section that was on the website and there's a single pond and I guess feeders into this pond and then I looked at how that works within the McIntire Road Extended Project and it works fine I guess if you're only interested in the lower 1200 feet or so of the project which is about 3,000 feet long.
  • 00:11:17
    Then I thought about the interchange that are, it's an independent project, but if I took any of the interchange designs, oh that would be great.
  • 00:11:27
    If I took any of the interchange designs and I placed them, these are all to scale, and you place them on the, oh you can see that in the monitor, that if you line these up, that the, all of the McIntire Road extended branches that come out of the interchanges
  • 00:11:45
    are about 100 feet to the east of the draft of the Meadow Creek Parkway itself.
  • 00:11:52
    Some of them extend as high as 900 feet into the park.
  • 00:11:58
    depending on which interchange design would be selected.
  • 00:12:01
    So my concern is that with these projects being done independently, if the interchange designs that we have before us that you considered at your last meeting, if any of them are considered, it runs straight through the middle of the design for the pond.
  • 00:12:17
    with the trails being moved over, it looks like it's a totally incompatible design.
  • 00:12:22
    So my concern is, and has been for a while, that designing these separate projects is leading to, it's like the great railroad where you go across the country from east and west and you miss by 100 miles, while here we're missing by 100 feet, and the width of that area that's buildable is about 300 feet, so that's a pretty significant miss.
  • 00:12:42
    So my urging to the Council is that you consider the fact that these projects cannot be successfully designed independently.
  • 00:12:51
    That it looks like this pond is primarily servicing the stormwater demands from the interchange.
  • 00:12:57
    So in fact this project is subsidizing in some way the interchange project should that be built.
  • 00:13:03
    And if the interchange is not built,
  • 00:13:06
    If we build this, the interchange could never be built later because there's just not enough room.
  • 00:13:10
    So it just seems to me a unified approach to constructing this project, certainly in the city, you have two projects in the city, but I would believe that conjunction with the county as well, that there should be one project
  • 00:13:23
    to avoid these mismatches and misfits of the various elements.
  • 00:13:28
    And so I would encourage you not to approve the pond design that's been provided.
  • 00:13:34
    It seems to be very sketchy, and I don't even believe it works.
  • 00:13:36
    It only considers a small portion of the project.
  • 00:13:39
    Thank you very much.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:13:40
    Thank you, Mr. Kramer.
  • 00:13:42
    Jane Allen.
• • SPEAKER_27
  • 00:13:48
    My name is Jane Allen.
  • 00:13:50
    I'm a local real estate appraiser, 2118 Angus Road.
  • 00:13:53
    Recently I've been doing residential appraisals and notice that my appraisals are all coming in substantially below the 2008 city assessments.
  • 00:14:04
    I've prepared a spreadsheet and the results are that 52 of the 100 resale properties sold less than assessment.
  • 00:14:14
    Of those, 44 sold more than 3% below with an average percentage below 13.56%.
  • 00:14:22
    39 were more than 5% low assessment with a 27.53% difference 46 sold above assessment which can probably happen if somebody's remodeled their home since the assessment but out of those 11 sold without any remodel and they were 21% or 20.82% higher than the tax assessment so I feel like we've got a lot of inconsistencies
  • 00:14:52
    I think our homeowners are very concerned about paying taxes, realize we don't want to cut the budget any more than we have to.
  • 00:14:58
    On the other hand, I think I have some real concerns there.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:15:03
    Thank you, Ms. Allen.
  • 00:15:04
    Stratton Salitas.
• • SPEAKER_20
  • 00:15:12
    Hello, Stratton Salitas.
  • 00:15:13
    I live at 704 Graves.
  • 00:15:15
    and I just wanted to come and let you all know that I went to the school board meeting on Thursday and I got to hear some of the questions the school board asked.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:15:27
    We're actually going to have a public hearing on this matter in a few minutes if you're going to be talking about the construction easement on the parkway?
• • SPEAKER_20
  • 00:15:33
    Well, I wasn't really so much going to talk about the easement so much as the fact that they were given misinformation, I feel.
  • 00:15:41
    And in general,
  • 00:15:45
    It was very low quality information.
  • 00:15:49
    There were some questions that were asked that, quite frankly, I could not believe that the people who answered did not know more than they shared to, that they shared.
  • 00:16:00
    The first question
  • 00:16:02
    they called my attention was asked of Angela Tucker and it was asked if the parkway had ever been a federal project she didn't know the answer to that the answer is that it had been a federal project in the past and they found it difficult to comply with the federal laws and that then it was turned into a state project also she was asked if there were differences in the hurdles between federal projects and state projects
  • 00:16:32
    Ms. Tucker is working on the interchange project, which is a federal project, and she basically did not have any significant differences that she could offer between the federal project and the state project.
  • 00:16:46
    and of course federal projects have to go through an environmental impact statement.
  • 00:16:50
    There's section 4F and there's greater historical hurdles that have to be crossed as well.
  • 00:16:56
    So this is basically misinformation I think that the school board got.
  • 00:16:59
    And then also Mr. Tolbert was asked if the parkway was not built if all the money would be lost.
  • 00:17:11
    His answer to that was
  • 00:17:14
    I heard from a CTB member that it probably would be.
  • 00:17:19
    I am paraphrasing here a little bit.
  • 00:17:20
    I encourage you all to check out the minutes for your own.
  • 00:17:24
    That does not say anything about the difference between secondary funds going through the parkway in the county and the fact that the city funds that would go to the parkway come out of urban funds that would stay with the city if the parkway was killed and could be spent
  • 00:17:38
    on transit.
  • 00:17:42
    And then finally he asked if the parkway would be built without an interchange.
  • 00:17:51
    and his answer to that was it could be built without an interchange.
  • 00:17:54
    Of course that's true, but he failed to mention that the majority of council has promised it would not be built without an interchange.
  • 00:18:00
    The council has actually set a resolution to VDOT saying it would not be built without an interchange.
  • 00:18:06
    And I think that's very misleading.
  • 00:18:08
    And I think that
  • 00:18:10
    It would be a great thing for you all to check out that discourse and then I think ultimately the school board should have another opportunity for a vote.
  • 00:18:19
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:18:19
    Thank you, Mr. Salinas.
  • 00:18:20
    Downing Smith.
• • SPEAKER_19
  • 00:18:28
    Well, I'm Downing Smith.
  • 00:18:29
    I live at 810 Lucas Avenue and I'm looking forward to listening to your meeting tomorrow at 5 o'clock about the water supply.
  • 00:18:36
    However, I have great concerns about the agenda.
  • 00:18:39
    The first draft of the agenda that I got, I got it on Friday.
  • 00:18:44
    And the dredging company is sharing 20 minutes with two other presenters.
  • 00:18:50
    That's like six minutes.
  • 00:18:52
    So I talked to Kevin Lynch on Saturday.
  • 00:18:56
    He said, oh, the dredging company is going to get 45 minutes.
  • 00:18:59
    So today I get the new agenda.
  • 00:19:02
    Well, now the dredging company's got 16 minutes.
  • 00:19:06
    There's no nice way to say this.
  • 00:19:08
    What we want to put this agenda together is trying to sabotage tomorrow's meeting by rigging the agenda.
  • 00:19:14
    And you need to give these dredgers a chance.
  • 00:19:18
    I know they're here because they want to make money, they want to get a contract, but they wouldn't be coming if they didn't think they were going to get a fair chance.
  • 00:19:26
    So I don't know how much time they need, but I know it's more than six minutes.
  • 00:19:30
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:19:31
    Thank you, Mr. Smith.
  • 00:19:33
    Frank Lawrence.
• • SPEAKER_22
  • 00:19:41
    Mayor Norris, I'm Fran Lawrence at 1729 Chesapeake Street in the city and I'm here in my capacity as the president of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center.
  • 00:19:49
    If I could take a moment to hand out coffee mugs and an update.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 00:19:58
    Open your teeth up also.
• • SPEAKER_22
  • 00:20:03
    I note that these coffee mugs have on them a picture of the Lewis and Clark keel boat
  • 00:20:12
    which is at your Darden Tower Park and I'm told is the only river-ready historically accurate replica of the keelboat in the world.
  • 00:20:32
    So I'm here to report, and I'd like to do this annually, kind of give you an update.
  • 00:20:36
    You know, we're living on a lease with the city and the county of Darlington Park.
  • 00:20:42
    I'm delighted and overjoyed that Mr. Huja's here.
  • 00:20:45
    Mr. Huja was our guiding light, if not our midwife, in the early stages.
  • 00:20:51
    I've been looking at my own archives, and I see we started as a committee of the city meeting in the basement conference room sometime in the mid-90s.
  • 00:20:58
    and it's been a long road.
  • 00:21:00
    We're a 501C3 corporation.
  • 00:21:02
    I've given you a report.
  • 00:21:03
    The highlights are exciting.
  • 00:21:05
    We're moving forward with our planned phase one building.
  • 00:21:08
    In the meantime, we're at the Kill Boat Barn every Saturday and Sunday, Saturday from 10 to 4, Sunday from noon to 4, open to the community and we're excited about kind of bringing our activities.
  • 00:21:21
    I'm going to present the mayor on behalf of the city.
  • 00:21:27
    A book which is, I think you know about, and it's important to us, it's The Last Child in the Woods, and it talks about a nationwide concern about getting our kids outside and dirty, and we intend to get our kids outside and dirty and learn a little history, so thank you for your support.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:21:44
    Thank you for your efforts.
  • 00:21:47
    Warren Luck.
• • SPEAKER_01
  • 00:21:57
    Hi, my name is Lauren Monk and I'm here from UVA on behalf of Students Taking Action Now Darfur.
  • 00:22:02
    I'm here today to urge the Charlottesville City Council to institute a divestment campaign as a way to put economic pressure on the government of Sudan in order to help stop the genocide in Darfur.
  • 00:22:15
    Divestment involves selling the investments and all eligible city funds from companies doing business
  • 00:22:20
    with the Sudanese government without providing infrastructure to the country or using their connection with Sudan's government in order to help stop the genocide.
  • 00:22:29
    We've spoken with Mayor Norris and then also the Treasurer and Mrs. Brown in order to see how feasible divestment would be and it seems that it's possible to divest some of the fiduciary funds that Charlottesville has and it should definitely be a great help.
  • 00:22:44
    Just for our background on Darfur, since 2003 it's
  • 00:22:49
    In the region of Darfur, over 400,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million people have been displaced.
  • 00:22:56
    The Janjawood militia, which is doing the majority of the killing, has actually been funded by the Sudanese government, providing them with money and then also the funds, the arms to kill their own citizens.
  • 00:23:09
    and a lot of the national budget is used to help the government fund the Janjabi.
  • 00:23:17
    So we've been trying to put political pressure on the Sudanese government and also use economic pressure.
  • 00:23:24
    We've been finding a lot of success with using economic pressure through divestment.
  • 00:23:31
    Sudan is relying on their foreign infrastructure to extract its oil.
  • 00:23:35
    So being able to put economic pressure on the companies, the oil companies from mostly China, Malaysia and India is really helping to put pressure on the Sydney government to kind of help stop the genocide and killing their own civilians.
  • 00:23:51
    Divestment has already been used all over the nation.
  • 00:23:54
    The Student Youth Divestment Task Force has been the leading force in helping to initiate divestment campaigns.
  • 00:24:01
    Over 19 cities have already divested and then also numerous states and universities including the University of Virginia have already divested.
  • 00:24:10
    Recently, Congress and President Bush also signed into effect the Student Accountability Divestment Act, which is going to encourage all states and cities to divest, and they're also helping to create a list of the companies that we need to divest from, so I hope you guys really take this into consideration.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:24:30
    Thank you very much.
  • 00:24:32
    Laura Harris.
• • SPEAKER_12
  • 00:24:40
    Hi, I'm Laura Harris, 254 Munford, also from UVA.
  • 00:24:46
    Is it okay if I continue to talk about this issue?
  • 00:24:50
    Okay, so basically just to get into a little more detail about how divestment would actually work for the city of Charlottesville.
  • 00:24:59
    According to conversations with Treasurer Brown, so it's mainly the fiduciary funds that would be exposed.
  • 00:25:08
    The fiduciary funds contained $84.8 million of June 30, 2007.
  • 00:25:13
    And within that is the retirement funds.
  • 00:25:17
    And so, which are spent to two plans, the defined benefit plan and the defined contribution plan.
  • 00:25:22
    The defined benefit plan, as you probably already know, is invested through eight managers and contains the majority of eligible city workers.
  • 00:25:34
    And depending on how these eight managers invest, it's likely that some or all of these funds will be eligible for divestment.
  • 00:25:43
    So our first and primary request is to divest all eligible funds in the defined plan.
  • 00:25:49
    and Treasurer Brown is currently investigating this.
  • 00:25:53
    It's an ongoing process, obviously, but we encourage you to take this resolution, which is a principled one, rather than relying on any specific sort of investment scheme to take that now.
  • 00:26:04
    And then the defined contribution fund is invested privately by each employee
  • 00:26:10
    And so we encourage you to send letters to those employees as well as funds that are not available for divestment at that time of the eight investment managers.
  • 00:26:19
    So we encourage you to send them letters notifying them of Charlottesville's decision if you do decide to take it.
  • 00:26:27
    and to encourage them to divest as well.
  • 00:26:30
    And we believe that this combination of letter sending and actual divestment is the strongest action that Charlottesville can take with regards to economically affecting the Sudanese government.
  • 00:26:43
    And STAND has been trying to make this, you know, an issue that affects or that is really kind of has a presence not only in UVA but in Charlottesville as a whole with our annual 5K.
  • 00:26:56
    that attracts a lot of Charlottesville residents and just general awareness programs and so we think that the standard for divestment should be extremely high but that Darfur is definitely an issue that's worthy of consideration for divestment and we also encourage Charlottesville in the long run to think about creating a socially responsible investment policy and we look forward to working
  • 00:27:26
    with the government or in any capacity trying to encourage this process, and thank you for your time.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:27:33
    Thank you.
  • 00:27:33
    Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak?
  • 00:27:38
    Mr. Smith?
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:27:43
    My name is Robert Brandon Smith III, past and future candidate for city council, and I'm mentioning that because it's germane to the issue that I came here to speak about tonight.
  • 00:27:56
    I have a very small reputation in this community, which I arrived to in 94.
  • 00:28:04
    After about 25 years in Richmond, I'm modest and I wish I could brag more about it as a community-based activist, amongst other things an environmental activist.
  • 00:28:17
    And I'm concerned, I haven't shown up at city council for a number of years, I've been really frustrated and disappointed.
  • 00:28:26
    One of the things I'd like to address, I have a comment, but I'm going to ask a question first.
  • 00:28:30
    This is a copy of the Sustainability Accords, and this is my concern.
  • 00:28:35
    That quite a few people in this room, and if anybody would like to humor me, 10 or 12 years ago, a lot of people in Charlottesville worked as volunteer citizen activists on the sustainability accords process.
  • 00:28:47
    And if you don't know what the accords are, essentially it was the guidelines.
  • 00:28:52
    And the notion, the proposition is, was,
  • 00:28:56
    that these would be the guidelines that the local in this area, the counties, the city, the public policy making, the city councils and supervisors would make the city.
  • 00:29:12
    These are the guidelines.
  • 00:29:13
    And this was an effort several years from people and there are about 10 statements.
  • 00:29:19
    If you'll humor me, I'm going to raise my hand.
  • 00:29:22
    If people that were on those, served on those committees, if they'd raise their hands, I'd be curious to see how many people are here.
  • 00:29:28
    There's one, two.
  • 00:29:31
    Interesting.
  • 00:29:32
    There are hundreds of people from the city and all around the county, and the process went on for years.
  • 00:29:37
    Well, my concern is that I find that we're still dealing with the Meadow Creek Parkway.
  • 00:29:45
    This is my concern.
  • 00:29:47
    and the Democratic Party, co-opted environmental activists in this community.
  • 00:29:54
    The Sierra Club has failed for years.
  • 00:29:57
    As a lot of people aren't aware, the legislature in Richmond is dominated by the, is controlled by the Home Builders Association in Virginia.
  • 00:30:06
    The agenda is dominated and controlled by these people, developers.
  • 00:30:11
    This Medically Parkway is a highway
  • 00:30:15
    and the automobile ages over.
  • 00:30:18
    There's nothing I can reconcile, I can't reconcile this parkway.
  • 00:30:21
    Millions of dollars to be spent.
  • 00:30:24
    It's incompatible with this thing that most of the people elected in the Democratic Party in the last dozen years have given lip service to.
  • 00:30:31
    35 years ago, it was 1975 in Richmond,
  • 00:30:41
    We were finding an expressway which gutted, the downtown expressway gutted neighborhoods.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:30:45
    Mr. Smith, your time's up.
  • 00:30:47
    You can wrap up your remarks.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 00:30:50
    Yeah, I think it's really simple.
  • 00:30:52
    I think I'm asking the elders in this community, people in leadership, to ignore the fact that the hard minorities commercially co-opted be ignored and that they do the right thing.
  • 00:31:09
    by the principles, as Winston Churchill said, if you're gonna govern, you operate out of principle.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:31:14
    Thank you, Mr. Smith.
  • 00:31:15
    Anybody else?
• • 00:31:17
    Yes.
• • SPEAKER_30
  • 00:31:18
    Thank you, Mr. Norris.
  • 00:31:19
    Hi, my name is Raymond Mason.
  • 00:31:21
    I live at 717 Cynthia Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia.
  • 00:31:24
    And the reason I'm here is I read an article in the paper on Saturday concerning the advisory board for the Charlottesville Police Department, and I was at a loss that, you know, I don't know if this was the group that formed that or decided, you know, what ability that advisory committee would have, but it would be a waste of time if you didn't give them the ability to
  • 00:31:44
    hold Chief Longbow and Charlottesville Police Department accountable for their actions.
  • 00:31:48
    Now, I'd like to know, you know, what information was used to decide not to do it, because I just, I grabbed an article from the hook, from the CD, I'm sorry, from 2005, and here's a perfect example.
  • 00:32:01
    It says right here, glasses on, under pressure to crack, yeah, under pressure to crack the case, Longbow ordered a DNA fragment by seeking voluntary samples, taking swabbing inner chiefs from 195 black men, police kicked over a hornet's nest.
  • 00:32:14
    Well, there are 195 examples of conduct that's unacceptable right there.
  • 00:32:20
    You know, you had the Cook case as well, where officers shot an unarmed man in a Friendship Court board voice.
  • 00:32:26
    But anyway, there's no reason not to have an advisory panel that could have parallel investigations and actually talk to the police.
  • 00:32:34
    It would be stupid not to.
  • 00:32:37
    You're not given, I mean, the panel would definitely help people in the community, in the black community, minority people in the community,
  • 00:32:43
    and it would help them probably more so than anyone else because that seems to be where most of the actions are taking place.
  • 00:32:49
    But without a panel it would help them, I mean, they're being lost.
  • 00:32:52
    I mean, most people are afraid to come and talk, whereas I'm not.
  • 00:32:54
    I have no problem expressing my feelings, you know, it's my right as a citizen to be able to do this.
  • 00:32:59
    But, you know, it's unfair to me and quite a few other people in this city, you know, to waste our time without a panel that doesn't do anything.
  • 00:33:06
    I mean, all they did was meet four times a year and have free money for probably a city expense.
  • 00:33:09
    That's a waste.
  • 00:33:11
    So with that, please do something about it.
  • 00:33:14
    Whatever you can do.
  • 00:33:14
    I don't know if your group decided, but when you come back and talk, let me know exactly who did that.
  • 00:33:18
    And I'm going to give you copies of these articles, because this is good history right here.
  • 00:33:22
    If you didn't read it, you should read it, because it has a lot of good stuff.
  • 00:33:28
    I'm going to stamp my card.
  • 00:33:29
    Okay.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:33:29
    Thank you, Mr. Mason.
  • 00:33:31
    Thank you.
  • 00:33:31
    Anybody else in the public like to speak?
  • 00:33:35
    Okay, we will now close out on matters by the public and would open it up to any counselors that have responses to comments that have just been offered.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 00:33:45
    I would like to make a few comments.
  • 00:33:48
    Sure.
  • 00:33:49
    First on Darfur divestment, and I would like to ask to support that effort and maybe staff can investigate and we can discuss that in future meetings.
  • 00:34:02
    Other things I would like to say to those UVA students are, it's good that you come here to Charlottesville City Council, but I hope you will go to a board of visitors also, they've got a few million dollars.
  • 00:34:14
    We only have a few million.
  • 00:34:15
    So I think charity should begin at home, and maybe start at UVA also.
  • 00:34:21
    So that is one issue I would like to follow up on.
  • 00:34:26
    Second issue which is of interest to me is
  • 00:34:31
    A friend has left, but I think the friend deserves a great deal of credit for working with Lewis and Clark Center, and I hope that we will appreciate his efforts and his team's efforts that are added to the community.
  • 00:34:50
    The third area which I would like to also talk about is, I also agree that Mr. Peter Clemens commented that we need to coordinate our interchange
  • 00:35:01
    and the pond and I think we need to do that as soon as we can.
  • 00:35:07
    The last item I would also like to talk on is police advisory board.
  • 00:35:13
    I remember two or three meetings back Mr. Taliaferro said that he would be in support of forming a board of this nature and I said likewise and I would like to see that issue discussed more by the council and appointed by the council.
  • 00:35:29
    So that's one of the things I would like to proceed.
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 00:35:33
    I just have a couple things to follow up on the comment about the disaster.
  • 00:35:38
    I had an opportunity this afternoon just to briefly talk with the city treasurer and I think you all have talked with her also I think.
  • 00:35:49
    She's going to look into that and as she explained to me, if council decides to do it, it may take a little time to unwind some of those investments, I guess.
  • 00:36:01
    So I'm sure she'll work on it and we'll have some more information forthcoming on that.
  • 00:36:09
    Also on the police advisory board, I'd like to discuss that some more also in terms of the process and how the board is going to be appointed at some time in the future if possible.
  • 00:36:24
    That's all I have.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 00:36:28
    I'll make a few comments.
  • 00:36:29
    I'd like to also thank the UVA students for coming.
  • 00:36:31
    I think that was a great idea.
  • 00:36:33
    I'm looking forward to us hopefully divesting.
  • 00:36:37
    I mean, I would support that and would at least like to see what we can do with that.
  • 00:36:41
    It's my impression that the UVA at least initially addressed the divestment issue.
  • 00:36:47
    I don't know how far they've gotten, but they've done some things.
  • 00:36:49
    I don't think they've not been approached by the students.
  • 00:36:54
    Secondly I'd like to just address briefly Ms. Hall talked about the landscape plan for this item that's on the agenda and I'm sure this will come out during the proceeding but it's my understanding that the BAR asks that the drawings not have the landscaping so you could really see the house and that there is landscaping planned and at some point that would have to come before the BAR for this to move forward but I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm not quite accurate on my facts there.
  • 00:37:21
    And finally, I wanted to thank Fran Lawrence.
  • 00:37:24
    I think the, and everyone involved with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, I think it's a great group.
  • 00:37:31
    But in particular, they've done a great job of involving the children in our community in the city and the county, having lots of kids involved with building their
  • 00:37:43
    their boats, having events at the Exploratory Center, having races and stuff in the water and I think it's, I know he's recruited me on a couple of occasions, one of my sons has been there quite a number of times and so I think that they've, they're really reaching out into the community and I think they all deserve a lot of thanks on that.
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 00:38:06
    I just want to echo the support of the UVA students and
  • 00:38:13
    I'm really thankful for my coffee mug because it sounds like I'm going to need it for that water supply work session tomorrow.
  • 00:38:24
    I'm well aware that there is a history of mistrust of the police in the African American community here, and some for very good reasons, but I'd also like to see this Charlottesville Advisory Board work and work well, because if it doesn't, it really defeats the purpose, because part of the idea of having the advisory board was to also
  • 00:38:48
    developed relationships, better relationships within the community too.
  • 00:38:51
    So I'll be watching that closely as well.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:38:56
    Thank you.
  • 00:38:58
    So we'll look forward to a further discussion on divestment.
  • 00:39:02
    And just to clarify, I do believe UVA has officially divested from Sudan already.
  • 00:39:07
    And I would also like to pursue on a broader level this idea of adopting a socially responsible investment policy so it's not just case by case but looking at it more holistically.
  • 00:39:19
    Secondly, Mr. Smith, the agenda for tomorrow night, I wouldn't be too wedded to the times that you saw on that draft agenda.
  • 00:39:27
    There will be a substantial discussion from presentation, not the full three hour presentation that they're giving right now,
  • 00:39:34
    but there will be at least an hour on the agenda.
  • 00:39:37
    Tomorrow we'll be talking about dredging, including a significant time for Gahing and Bryant.
  • 00:39:46
    Let's see.
  • 00:39:47
    Mr. O'Connor, can you address Ms. Hall's question about just the confusion on the two related agenda items assigned similar?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 00:39:57
    The energy audit is a state grant from the Virginia Sustainable Building Network.
  • 00:40:04
    to do audits of the Charlottesville City Elementary School, so we're using a state grant, therefore the appropriation is on the agenda.
  • 00:40:12
    The later item is actually a tax exemption for either individual properties or commercial businesses in the community that meet energy efficiency kind of guidelines that are in the ordinance to actually be eligible for a tax exemption.
  • 00:40:27
    So they're two very different items.
  • 00:40:28
    And we'll talk about the tax exemption some more on the later item.
  • 00:40:32
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:40:33
    And then lastly, I do hear from counsel that we'd like to have more discussion in the not-too-distant future about the proposal regarding citizen review board, but I did want to ask our chief if you would come forward if you're willing to do so.
  • 00:40:47
    Just give us a brief sort of assessment of your thinking and then we won't get into a whole prolonged discussion tonight.
• • SPEAKER_00
  • 00:40:56
    Mr. Mayor and Members of Council, Mr. O'Connell, and I will be brief along with the weather if you could hear from the sound of my voice.
  • 00:41:02
    I really see this process as having four steps.
  • 00:41:05
    The first of which was to have the courage to move forward with what I propose as a citizens advisory group and I think Ms. Edwards said it well, the primary responsibility of that group and this police department would be to develop the kinds of relationships
  • 00:41:21
    that are really necessary to help us be successful at our job in policing this community.
  • 00:41:25
    Second to that is a sounding board to the police chief and the department in the aftermath of critical incidents as appropriate so that we can make sure that accurate facts and information get back to the community.
  • 00:41:38
    Second step would be to, as I think Mr. Taliaferro alluded to, and that is to further define the process.
  • 00:41:45
    What would the structure of the board look like?
  • 00:41:47
    What would their specific duties and responsibilities be?
  • 00:41:51
    And then from that, appoint the committee.
  • 00:41:53
    However, the Manager and Council chooses to do that.
  • 00:41:56
    And then lastly, to train up that committee.
  • 00:41:59
    And we would be using the Department of Justice Community Relations section in which to accomplish that.
  • 00:42:03
    And those four things I feel reasonably comfortable could be accomplished probably in the fall.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:42:11
    Thank you, sir.
  • 00:42:12
    Hope you get well soon.
  • 00:42:15
    Okay, we're going to move on with our regular agenda and the first item of business is our consent agenda and I want to announce that item G on the consent agenda which is in preparation of $10,000 for Habitat for Humanity has been removed from the tonight's agenda altogether.
  • 00:42:36
    Item G has been removed altogether and we will not be discussing that tonight.
  • 00:42:41
    So we have remaining on the consent agenda item A is minutes of April 15th, 18th, and 21.
  • 00:42:46
    Item B is an appropriation of $2,500 in energy audit incentive grant, second of two readings.
  • 00:42:51
    Item C is an appropriation of $1,450 in insurance reimbursement for the golf course, second of two readings.
  • 00:42:58
    Item D is an appropriation of $130,000 school construction grant, second of two readings.
  • 00:43:03
    Item E, an appropriation of $135,893 for an energy performance contract, second of two readings.
  • 00:43:12
    Item F is an appropriation of $11,667, a gain prevention grant, first of two readings.
  • 00:43:18
    Item G is removed.
  • 00:43:19
    Item H has been moved further on the agenda.
  • 00:43:25
    Item I is an ordinance conveying land on North Berkshire Road to Habitat for Humanity, second of two readings.
  • 00:43:31
    Item J is an ordinance, a quick-cleaning gas easement to VDOT, Bending Branch Road, first of two readings.
  • 00:43:37
    Item K is an ordinance, trash decals adding two additional container sizes, first of two readings.
  • 00:43:44
    Is there a motion to approve or any items that councillors would like removed from the consent agenda?
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 00:43:51
    I'll move the agenda.
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 00:43:53
    Second.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:43:54
    Any further discussion?
  • 00:43:55
    If not, please indicate your vote.
  • 00:43:58
    Thank you very much.
  • 00:44:01
    The next item on our agenda is an appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision and here to present this matter, this regards 509 Second Street Northeast, here to present is Jim Tolbert and Fred Wolf.
• • Jim TolbertDirector of Neighborhood Development Services
  • 00:44:25
    Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council.
  • 00:44:26
    I'll be brief just to introduce this.
  • 00:44:29
    This is an appeal, it's an unusual one that is kind of different from most of them that you get appeals of BAR decisions.
  • 00:44:36
    This is an appeal by the neighbors of a decision to approve a project that the BAR made.
  • 00:44:44
    The approval was for certificate of appropriateness for a single family home at 509 2nd Street Northeast.
  • 00:44:52
    This was submitted to the BAR for approval for preliminary review on November 2nd, November of 07.
  • 00:44:59
    It was given preliminary review again in January of this year and then in March of this year it was approved for, the CO was approved by the Board of Architectural Review.
  • 00:45:13
    At that approval on March 18th, the BAR voted 7 to 0.
  • 00:45:19
    A certificate of appropriateness for demolition of certain stone walls and concrete block walls as specified, including reuse of any stone from the demolition of the site walls.
  • 00:45:29
    Then they voted 6-1 for certificate of appropriateness for the new dwelling and hardscape, including the second driveway, in respect to the project's massing, placement of window openings and materiality.
  • 00:45:41
    The BAR conditioner approval following would come back to the BAR with additional detail for approval at some future point.
  • 00:45:48
    That's the port structure, the details at the intersection of the front bay with the sloped roof behind, the louvered panels on the openings, the security gate at the driveway, proportion of the windows that are set in any foundation wall, the color and finish as they relate to all the material choices, cornice details, details of the hardboard and reveals, trim piece and junction.
  • 00:46:09
    All those would have to come back, so it's essentially a general approval with the details to follow.
  • 00:46:16
    This property is zoned R1S, single-family residential.
  • 00:46:20
    It is proposed as a home of approximately 8,500 square feet, two stories with a basement.
  • 00:46:29
    The lot itself is 9,881 square feet.
  • 00:46:33
    It does conform to all the zoning requirements, but again, it is in an architectural design control district and was
  • 00:46:43
    was appealed.
  • 00:46:46
    The appeal is by the neighbors to you.
  • 00:46:48
    Fred Wolf is here to represent the BAR.
  • 00:46:51
    I think, I'm not trying to recollect, but I think the process is that in the past staff presented the applicant of the appellant and then the BAR to follow up when that's done.
  • 00:47:03
    So I think Fred is prepared to wait until you call on him at this point.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 00:47:09
    Thank you, Mr. Talbert.
  • 00:47:14
    Ms. Swalco?
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 00:47:18
    Thank you.
  • 00:47:20
    I'm Kristen Swalco.
  • 00:47:21
    In addition to being a resident of Second Street Northeast, I'm also the chair of the board of the Charlottesville Community Design Center.
  • 00:47:30
    I'm a co-founder of Friends of McGuffey Park, and I sit on the Citizens Committee for Environmental Sustainability.
  • 00:47:37
    I also sit on the board of the Police Department Foundation, which is unrelated to the Controversial Advisory Council.
  • 00:47:44
    I'm presenting today together with Fred Schneider, who's sitting behind me, who is a Preservation Architect and Vice Chair of the Scottsville Board of Architectural Review.
  • 00:47:54
    He's also a 23-year resident of Second Street Northeast.
  • 00:47:58
    We're representing six households that have contiguous properties to the proposed building, and we're also representing other concerned neighbors, many of whom are here tonight.
  • 00:48:09
    We want to be clear from the outset.
  • 00:48:11
    We are not interested in interfering with the design expertise of the BAR and we are not asking you to do that either.
  • 00:48:19
    Rather, we're appealing the process by which the BAR's decision was made and some specific guidelines that we feel were not met.
  • 00:48:29
    Now, it's our understanding that it is your duty to hear this as though it had not ever been heard before and that you can consider factors other than simply what the BAR did.
  • 00:48:40
    And I have the ordinances that dictate that here.
  • 00:48:47
    I won't read them.
  • 00:48:48
    I assume you know what they say.
  • 00:48:53
    The appellants all support urban infill.
  • 00:48:57
    They all support green construction and they all support architectural diversity.
  • 00:49:04
    But not to the exclusion of the life and the character of the neighborhood.
  • 00:49:09
    Now you're going to hear a lot about that phrase, I think, tonight, the character of the neighborhood.
  • 00:49:14
    In fact, it's used specifically in some of the guidelines that we're going to be talking about.
  • 00:49:18
    But I want to make a distinction.
  • 00:49:21
    I think that when architects and developers talk about the character of the neighborhood, they're talking about the built form and the specific features of buildings.
  • 00:49:32
    When we talk about the character of the neighborhood, what we're talking about is how the built form affects the fabric and creates a sense of place, and that is a somewhat different distinction.
  • 00:49:46
    Our understanding is that what the historic overlay is supposed to protect is not just buildings, but that fabric.
  • 00:49:56
    In the case of Second Street Northeast, that fabric is extremely close knit, almost like a family.
  • 00:50:03
    The reason for that is that all of our homes have a relationship to the street, where we park our cars, where we garden, where we socialize, all contribute to the life of the neighborhood.
  • 00:50:16
    Our new neighbors, whom we welcome, may not want that kind of interaction with us, but this building is going to far outlast them.
  • 00:50:26
    We want to preserve that opportunity for them and for the future occupants of the neighborhood.
  • 00:50:33
    Now we should note that we have had many exchanges of views with the architect and with the owners, and we very much appreciate their attempts to understand our concerns.
  • 00:50:43
    But there are two issues that put this building at odds with the city's own guidelines.
  • 00:50:48
    One of them is scale, or as you might call it, comparative size, and the other is the orientation to the street.
  • 00:50:56
    Now Fred is going to talk specifically about those issues and then I'm going to come back and wrap up with some additional comments.
• • SPEAKER_25
  • 00:51:12
    Good evening.
  • 00:51:14
    My name is Fred Schneider.
  • 00:51:16
    I'm a resident of 506 Second Street Northeast.
  • 00:51:21
    I want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Brown, for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of my family and my neighbors.
  • 00:51:32
    As you just heard, the BAR heard the application for 509 Second Street three times in November 2007
  • 00:51:41
    in January and March of this year.
  • 00:51:45
    Each time, neighbors, myself included, expressed reservations and concerns about the size, scale, and massing of the proposed building and about the absence of features that reinforce human scale and contribute to neighborhood character.
  • 00:52:03
    We petitioners and other neighbors also raised these concerns informally.
  • 00:52:08
    at neighborhood meetings with the architect and owner.
  • 00:52:12
    Although initially there was some discussion of these issues by the BAR, the discussion seemed to shift to matters of details such as window placement and style, choice of materials, and junctions between building forms.
  • 00:52:27
    The basic matters on which such decisions normally depend
  • 00:52:32
    and the issue that has the most profound impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the size and massing of the building got insufficient scrutiny by the BAR.
  • 00:52:43
    I think at this point it's useful to review for you the criteria that the BAR uses to review applications for new construction and alterations within architectural design control districts.
  • 00:52:59
    So I'd like to read from the city code section three
  • 00:53:02
    4-284B states, in considering a particular application, the BAR shall approve the application unless it finds one that the proposal does not meet specific standards set forth within this division or applicable provisions of the design guidelines established by the board pursuant to Section 34-288-6.
  • 00:53:31
    and number two, the proposal is incompatible with the historic, cultural or architectural character of the district in which the property is located or the protected property that is the subject of the application.
  • 00:53:47
    Our contention this evening is that the proposed historic building is incompatible with the character of the North Downtown Historic District and with our historic Second Street neighborhood.
  • 00:54:00
    and that it does not meet the following guidelines.
  • 00:54:04
    And now I would like to read from the city's design guidelines for new construction for architectural design control districts.
  • 00:54:13
    The first guideline, 3.D, massing and footprint on page 3.6.
  • 00:54:21
    New infill construction in residential subareas should relate in footprint and massing to the majority of surrounding historic dwellings.
  • 00:54:31
    and just to clarify for you and for the audience, massing refers both to the size and volume of a structure and to the forms by which that volume is expressed architecturally.
  • 00:54:45
    Second guideline is from Section 3.F, Scale and Orientation on page 3.8.
  • 00:54:54
    Scale can also be defined as the relationship of the size of a building to neighboring buildings.
  • 00:55:00
    and of a building to its site.
  • 00:55:04
    The recommendation is to provide features on new construction that reinforce the scale and character of the surrounding area, whether human or monumental.
  • 00:55:15
    Next is section 3.E height and width on page 3.7.
  • 00:55:21
    reinforce the human scale of the historic districts by including elements such as porches, entrances, and decorative features depending on the character of the particular sub area.
  • 00:55:33
    And lastly, tonight, I'd like to reference Section 3.I, Porches, on Page 3.12, where it states, most of Charlottesville's historic houses have some type of porch.
  • 00:55:47
    There is much variety in the size, location, and type of porches.
  • 00:55:51
    and this variety relates to different residential areas.
  • 00:55:55
    Strong consideration should be given to including a porch or similar form in the design of any new residence in these sub areas.
  • 00:56:05
    As Kristen mentioned, you'll notice that several of these guidelines make reference to relationships with neighboring buildings and surrounding historic dwellings.
  • 00:56:14
    And this is particularly important with respect to the building size.
  • 00:56:19
    Yet as far as we know, the BAR did not receive or request any comparative information about other residences in the neighborhood from the applicant or staff, nor was there any quantitative discussion of such matters at the three BAR meetings.
  • 00:56:39
    I'd like now to hand out some information to you.
  • 00:56:47
    which I think will provide that kind of comparative context.
  • 00:56:53
    Yeah, if you pass that out to the members of council and support staff.
  • 00:57:12
    The information that you're receiving includes a table
  • 00:57:15
    It shows both the livable and the total square footages of residences in the 500 and 400 blocks of 2nd Street Northeast.
  • 00:57:26
    And you'll notice that I've included several residences that are multifamily in nature.
  • 00:57:32
    And I've done that because they have the form and massing of traditional, albeit large, single-family residences.
  • 00:57:41
    Now, except for the proposed building,
  • 00:57:44
    These figures were compiled by the city assessor's online records that are available through the city website.
  • 00:57:52
    The corresponding figures for the proposed building, in contrast, in this case 6,000 square feet of livable area and 8,500 square feet total building area, and those are highlighted in yellow on your table, were calculated by Mary Joy Scala, who is the support staff for the BAR.
  • 00:58:13
    I'd like to reference my comments from this point on to the column that shows the total building area because I think that these numbers give a much better representation of the overall mass of a building and that is the subject of our concern.
  • 00:58:29
    The houses in the 500 block and the 400 block have each been ranked in descending order of total building area.
  • 00:58:40
    You'll see that the residences in the 500 block, where the proposed building would be located, 509 would clearly be the largest residence by a factor of more than two, considering either the livable area or the total building area.
  • 00:58:58
    It would also be approximately three times the size of the average residence on the block, and you see the figures for the averages there at the bottom of that section.
  • 00:59:11
    and it would be larger than the combined total building size of the three houses directly across the street from the site which is numbers 502, 504 and 506 by over 1,000 square feet.
  • 00:59:30
    The one commonly held perception is that the proposed building would be comparable in size to the two historic buildings at the top of Second Street.
  • 00:59:41
    namely number 422 presently owned by the Epstein's and number 426 owned by the Marshalls.
  • 00:59:49
    And these houses are shown in blue both on your table and on the accompanying map.
  • 00:59:55
    By reference to the city assessor's data shows that these residences with total building areas of roughly 5,000 square feet and 3,700 square feet respectively come nowhere near the proposed building
  • 01:00:09
    the proposed building's total building area of 8500 square feet.
  • 01:00:15
    Another perception is that the massing of the proposed building is comparable to that of the adjacent townhouses located at 501 through 507 Second Street.
  • 01:00:27
    While the overall building volume may be comparable, the important difference is that the townhouses are four separate and independent residences
  • 01:00:38
    not a single family residence with an accessory apartment.
  • 01:00:44
    I also want to note here that in the city zoning ordinance an accessory apartment is a use category not a special condition and it does not confer with it the right to build additional square footage.
  • 01:00:59
    Now a brief word about footprint.
  • 01:01:02
    All new residential construction, and not just in historic districts, must comply with front, side and rear yard setbacks as provided in the zoning ordinance.
  • 01:01:13
    And this the proposed building does.
  • 01:01:17
    The area that remains is the buildable portion of the lot.
  • 01:01:20
    In this case, the proposed building occupies a very large percentage of that remainder, much more than the other large houses on Second Street.
  • 01:01:30
    In fact, the two houses that are frequently perceived to be the largest on the street, again number 422 and 426, shown in blue, sit on double frontage lots that are significantly larger and therefore considerably reduce those structures apparent size.
  • 01:01:49
    And in contrast, the proposed building so fully occupies its lot frontage that it will appear much larger than it is.
  • 01:02:01
    The proposed building is, in simple English, too big for our neighborhood.
  • 01:02:08
    And it is grossly out of character with the size of other residences on our street.
  • 01:02:14
    To ignore this basic observation is to reject a central issue of architectural compatibility and to render, in my opinion, architectural design review in a historic district a rather meaningless exercise.
  • 01:02:30
    I could also speak at length about the other guidelines that I referenced earlier, those that recommend the incorporation of neighborly and human scale-giving features such as porches and stairs.
  • 01:02:44
    The fact of the matter is that the proposed building, throughout its evolution, was first lacking them, then in its second iteration had them, I think as a result of comments and concerns by the BAR, and then
  • 01:03:01
    once again lost them in the third proposal, the proposal that was approved conceptually by the BAR in March.
  • 01:03:10
    And that was an approval, I might add, that contained an unusual number of caveats, as you heard Mr. Tolbert recount.
  • 01:03:20
    Perhaps there is the intention to ensure that the building contributes to the life of the street through the subsequent meetings with the BAR.
  • 01:03:28
    But what is clear is that the BAR has already signed off on the size of the building, failing to follow its own guidelines, and that is something that no amount of tinkering with details can fix.
  • 01:03:43
    Kristin will continue the presentation.
  • 01:03:45
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 01:03:52
    Just a few brief words on sustainability and then I'll wrap up.
  • 01:03:57
    Now while the Board of Architectural Review is not required to consider sustainability issues, the City Council can.
  • 01:04:06
    And I'd like to just like to review a couple of those.
  • 01:04:11
    Reading from the 2007 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Charlottesville.
  • 01:04:16
    Several of the older neighborhoods in Charlottesville are being threatened by development not commensurate with the scale and character of the city's urban and historic fabric.
  • 01:04:26
    The comp plan goes on to state goals to facilitate development that demonstrates appropriate scale, promote walkability, site buildings on land to achieve the least impact, and enhance the existing character, stability, and scale of the city's older neighborhoods.
  • 01:04:45
    Let me say first that the presence of a three-car garage, among other things, is one of the things that drives up the scale of this building.
  • 01:04:54
    Now, obviously, off-street parking is desirable in this city.
  • 01:04:59
    By supporting four cars, there's an additional driveway, for a single residence with one accessory unit seemed out of context with this district.
  • 01:05:10
    More importantly, good community design principles will always tell you
  • 01:05:14
    that the orientation around the car sharply limits the kind of interaction, the on the street casual interaction that makes neighborhoods so vital and so lively and that makes this street what it is.
  • 01:05:28
    Second, while this building is intended to be sustainable and we laud those efforts, that goal is being compromised by the large volume and the number of cars that it supports.
  • 01:05:40
    A recent report by the McKinsey and Company talks about how the carbon intensity of buildings in the United States is remaining flat despite all of our improvements in energy efficiency and technology simply because of the increasing volumes of our homes and the number of appliances that we have in them.
  • 01:05:59
    So what we're hoping is that this will prompt a discussion about what tools the city has in place, whether it's the BAR process or other guidelines, to ensure that its goals, as stated in many documents, are actually met.
  • 01:06:15
    We feel like this is truly a precedent-setting case in the sense that it could help set the course for future infill development in Charlottesville, maybe not in the historic district, but probably elsewhere in downtown.
  • 01:06:27
    So consequently, we are hoping that you will show leadership on this issue and looking forward to the future of Charlottesville.
  • 01:06:36
    We respectfully request that council deny the certificate of appropriateness so that a building of more appropriate scale and orientation to the lot and the street and the neighborhood can be considered.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:06:48
    Thanks.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 01:06:56
    Sorry, I'm supposed to request time to speak again after the other presentation.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:07:02
    Okay.
  • 01:07:04
    Mr. Wolfe, are you up?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 01:07:13
    Okay, sorry.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:07:17
    Mr. Tescala.
• • SPEAKER_24
  • 01:07:34
    Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council, Mr. Brown, Mr. O'Connor when he returns.
  • 01:07:41
    It's good to be back here with you tonight and it's an honor to represent Mark and Barbara Fried in this action.
  • 01:07:53
    I have submitted summaries of our presentation to the council.
  • 01:07:59
    I don't know, Mr. Brown, do you have one of these?
  • 01:08:04
    Mr. Mayor and members of council,
  • 01:08:27
    My clients, Mark and Barbara Freed, live out in Crozet and they've wanted for a while to be able to move into the city and this is an effort for them to build a house in the city that they could live in.
  • 01:08:41
    They want to be good neighbors, they've stressed that point, if you will see from this presentation all that they've been involved in from the very beginning in all the various meetings
  • 01:08:51
    that have occurred with the BAR and with the neighbors have all been about transparency.
  • 01:08:55
    Everything's out in the open, people can see it.
  • 01:08:57
    That's why I think everyone has such a thoroughgoing understanding of what's going on and why this debate has been so interesting.
  • 01:09:06
    And they just happen to want to relocate to one of the most beautiful streets and one of the most wonderful neighborhoods in the city.
  • 01:09:14
    So we're hoping that you will approve the certificates of appropriateness as to two matters.
  • 01:09:22
    The partial demolition of stone walls on the site of the property and issue a certificate of appropriateness for the design of new construction on the site.
  • 01:09:34
    You heard earlier I think from both the staff report and perhaps from the neighbors that the Freeds will have to return to the BAR for a landscape plan.
  • 01:09:44
    and also for some details related to the finishes and some things having to do with some of the window forms.
  • 01:09:50
    But what we're asking for tonight is for you to issue the certificate of appropriateness really for the purpose of constructing the new family residence.
  • 01:10:00
    Now, just to give you some context to the location, I think many of you probably walked down the street
  • 01:10:09
    I've walked down that street probably, well, a lot of times over the 20 years because I live right around the corner.
  • 01:10:16
    And if you look on this sheet in the back, you can see the orientation, High Street to the left, or I guess would be to the south, and then you take, you go down 2nd Street Northeast to a corner.
  • 01:10:28
    On that corner, you will find what would be referred to, is going to be referred to as the Townhouse Complex.
  • 01:10:35
    Next adjoining lot is the Freed lot.
  • 01:10:38
    which is 88 feet wide.
  • 01:10:41
    It's a big lot.
  • 01:10:43
    It's part of the reason why you can put a larger structure on the lot.
  • 01:10:47
    to get further context of what it looks like today versus what it might look like in the future.
  • 01:10:53
    And again, we have to emphasize the point that we've drawn in some trees just to give you some flavor, but we don't want to mislead anyone.
  • 01:11:01
    The BAR took the position they wanted to see the building without the trees so they could get a good feel of its massing, its scale, the spacing.
  • 01:11:11
    We think it'd be good for you to see what's there now, however, and compare it to what's going to be there.
  • 01:11:16
    because you can consider other factors when you consider this application.
  • 01:11:21
    So if you take a look at this top slide, you will see the cars on the parking lot that now occupies that lot.
  • 01:11:30
    And there are, I don't know how many there are there in the picture, four, but I think there may be as many as nine spaces.
  • 01:11:36
    There are a lot of spaces.
  • 01:11:39
    If you take a look to the right, you can see the conceptual rendition of what it could look like if this building is built.
  • 01:11:50
    On the left down portion, you see a look down Second Street going down the hill.
  • 01:11:55
    with again the condominium townhouse complex to the left of the lot.
  • 01:12:01
    You can see the cars parked on the site and then you can see what happens if this building is built the way the BAR supported it with its issuance by a six to one vote by the way of the certificate of appropriateness.
  • 01:12:20
    Now a little bit on the process because there's been some commentary about that tonight.
  • 01:12:25
    Prior to the approval of the BAR and its meeting of March 18th of 2008, this proposal was considered for preliminary review of BAR meetings on November 20th, 2007 and again
  • 01:12:40
    on January 15th of 2008.
  • 01:12:43
    The design of this building has benefited a great deal from this public process, a public process that has involved neighbors who have contributed in various ways along the way, both in public meetings and in informal discussions with the architect and the applicant.
  • 01:13:02
    There have been formal neighborhood meetings
  • 01:13:05
    Our understanding is that the North Downtown Neighborhood Association discussed this project in its meeting of January 29, 2008.
  • 01:13:13
    To the best of our knowledge, despite a representation that was made earlier in the evening, the North Downtown Association has taken no vote.
  • 01:13:22
    I don't know if there's any resolution that's been passed.
  • 01:13:25
    There's a lot I don't know in life, but I don't know of that one.
  • 01:13:28
    So if there is one, I would like to know about that.
  • 01:13:32
    As a result of the BAR meeting in November of 2007, the design was altered.
  • 01:13:39
    The garage, which originally was projected to be in the front of the house, was moved around the back, again in part to respond to the desire for good urban design and really to hide the automobiles in the back of the building.
  • 01:13:52
    In that way, it's not inconsistent.
  • 01:13:54
    with what has happened with the condominium complex immediately next door where there are, I don't know how many parking spaces in the back of that building, but there are a lot of, maybe eight, I don't want to misrepresent it, but there are a lot, there are more than a few in the back of that building.
  • 01:14:10
    There was a porch and a front garden added to improve the streetscape and to respond to the desire of neighbors that there would be a feel on the street and an orientation to the street.
  • 01:14:24
    And the house was reduced in size and its footprint was reduced in size too.
  • 01:14:30
    The width was reduced of the building.
  • 01:14:33
    At the BAR meeting of January 19, there were decisions made to reuse the stone from the demolition of some existing walls from new site walls and other changes made to the roof and the windows to further harmonize the structure with the neighborhood.
  • 01:14:48
    The driveway was reduced in size and there was a gate imposed to the right of the house to help shield the neighborhood from the feeling of this being a driveway.
  • 01:15:00
    So, we get to March 5th, 2008, after a whole slew of meetings, and the BAR considers this project, which they have considered for a long period of time, and in a 7-0 vote on the walls, they issue the certificate of appropriateness as to the partial demolition, and in a 6-1 vote, they issue the certificate of appropriateness as to the new building.
  • 01:15:27
    Now Mr. Schneider, I believe, referenced city code 348-284, sub-paragraph B.
  • 01:15:35
    And he's absolutely right in considering the application.
  • 01:15:38
    The BAR shall approve the application unless it finds.
  • 01:15:43
    And this is key.
  • 01:15:45
    that the proposed guideline, the proposal does not meet the specific standards set forth within this division or within the design guidelines.
  • 01:15:56
    So the BAR is charged with that specific responsibility of looking at those design guidelines and seeing if the applicant has made out the case with the guidelines or rather to show that they haven't made out the case and therefore deny them the certificate of appropriateness.
  • 01:16:14
    The proposal also has to show that BAR also has to find if the proposal is incompatible, they have to turn it down.
  • 01:16:23
    But otherwise, they have to grant a certificate of appropriateness.
  • 01:16:27
    Our argument is the specific standards aren't met.
  • 01:16:31
    So let's take a look at some of those standards.
  • 01:16:33
    First, the sustainability issue.
  • 01:16:35
    This was an issue that was raised, I think rightfully so, by the neighborhood.
  • 01:16:39
    I think we have a responsibility to develop sustainable design forms and apply them in the city, and that's exactly what this does.
  • 01:16:49
    This proposed design is designed to meet LEED gold certification as a benchmark.
  • 01:16:56
    What does that mean?
  • 01:16:57
    Well, it means solar panels.
  • 01:16:59
    It means green roof.
  • 01:17:00
    It means energy star appliances in the building itself.
  • 01:17:04
    It means orientation.
  • 01:17:06
    It means windows, special insulated windows.
  • 01:17:10
    It means special ways of setting up the site to reduce the impact of the heat.
  • 01:17:15
    It means the possibility of geothermal.
  • 01:17:18
    It means a whole host of things.
  • 01:17:21
    So much so that we are projecting that the carbon footprint of this building, even though it's larger than most of the buildings in the neighborhood,
  • 01:17:30
    will be smaller than most if not all of the buildings.
  • 01:17:35
    And that is an important factor to consider.
  • 01:17:39
    There are cars everywhere in the city.
  • 01:17:42
    There are cars on this site, there are cars on the street, there are driveways on many of these houses in the street and a lot of them right close by to the frieze.
  • 01:17:54
    How many cars does each family have?
  • 01:17:57
    Who knows?
  • 01:17:58
    we all could do with fewer cars.
  • 01:18:03
    But the Freeds are only asking for driveways so that they can park their cars and they're trying to hide the cars off of the street, get them away from the street where they don't belong.
  • 01:18:15
    Flexibility, the city guidelines 3A, architectural design control guidelines chapter 3A,
  • 01:18:23
    The intent of the city guidelines is not to be overly specific or dictate certain designs or to mimic particular historical styles.
  • 01:18:33
    We can take cues from the architecture of the area, but that doesn't mean that every house has to look alike and that's very well written into the guidelines.
  • 01:18:42
    So what do we do with urban infill, which is really the key thing and I think the neighbors will like to point it out.
  • 01:18:49
    It is the key thing.
  • 01:18:51
    Setbacks, spacing and massing.
  • 01:18:54
    Let's talk about massing first because there's been a lot of discussion of massing and some, I think, errors in some of the numbers that have been presented to you.
  • 01:19:05
    The other thing I might point out is VAR has known this is a big building right from the beginning.
  • 01:19:09
    There's been no doubt about that.
  • 01:19:11
    that this is a big building and the BAR has known it from the beginning.
  • 01:19:14
    But it's not as big as it being represented.
  • 01:19:17
    The finished living space of 509, proposed 509 Northeast, finished living space, and this is two units, is 5,748 square feet.
  • 01:19:33
    If you were to take the living space of 501, 503, 505 and 507,
  • 01:19:40
    arguably of four units, but they're all part of one building.
  • 01:19:43
    That's what gives the cue as to massing.
  • 01:19:46
    How big is it together?
  • 01:19:48
    What does it look like?
  • 01:19:48
    What does it present on the street?
  • 01:19:52
    It's almost 10,000 square feet total building area and 8,000 feet finished area, almost.
  • 01:20:00
    So let's put this in context.
  • 01:20:01
    Now let's compare a little bit more to what you see next door.
  • 01:20:06
    This lot is 88 feet wide.
  • 01:20:08
    It's somewhat larger than most lots on the street.
  • 01:20:11
    And so creating an urban infill project is really a challenge.
  • 01:20:16
    The proposal as to the volume, which again speaks to massing, the volume of this unit, we estimated 78,724 cubic feet versus 121,192 cubic feet for the building next door.
  • 01:20:35
    It's a huge difference.
  • 01:20:36
    It's less wide than that building.
  • 01:20:38
    The Freed's building is 64 feet wide versus 73 feet 6 inches for the condominium complex, the townhouse complex.
  • 01:20:48
    It's not as high as that complex.
  • 01:20:50
    And in fact, rather than having one roof line across the top all the same height, this unit is broken in two so as to give a better sense of urban scale.
  • 01:21:02
    and it is at its highest.
  • 01:21:04
    At the street facade, it's only 31 feet high versus 37 feet high for the condominium complex.
  • 01:21:14
    So in a way, the freed unit has the possibility of creating a transition as you move down the street.
  • 01:21:20
    Now, a couple of other elements and I shouldn't be talking because the architect should talk to some of these things, but let's look at setback because setback has a lot to do with this.
• • SPEAKER_19
  • 01:21:29
    If you take a look at the setbacks on Second Street, and you can compare it, you can look, you can see it on the map.
• • SPEAKER_24
  • 01:21:36
    You see how close those setbacks are on the first block.
  • 01:21:40
    But as you get to Hatch, then things start to unwind and the setbacks get farther from the street as you move down the street.
  • 01:21:49
    The setback on the condominium complex is closer to the street than the setback on the freed residence.
  • 01:21:57
    Why is that?
  • 01:21:58
    Again, transition.
  • 01:22:00
    You don't want to create too much on that street.
  • 01:22:02
    You want to move it away a little bit so it gives a better sense of pedestrian feel, a better sense of scale.
  • 01:22:11
    Setbacks and spacing.
  • 01:22:13
    Now what about spacing?
  • 01:22:15
    There's been some suggestion in earlier meetings that there wasn't enough space around the Freed House.
  • 01:22:22
    In point of fact, there's more space around the Freed House than some of those other spaced units on Second Street.
  • 01:22:28
    You can see how close they are to the property lines.
  • 01:22:32
    The Freed House, and again, you've got to go to the guidelines,
  • 01:22:37
    The architectural design control guidelines 3C1 state that new residents should be spaced within 20% of the average spacing between houses on the block.
  • 01:22:48
    Spacing on 2nd Street Northeast is very tight.
  • 01:22:53
    Spacing between homes on 2nd Street ranges from 6 to 17 feet and the side setbacks for five homes on the west side of the street.
  • 01:23:03
    That's up there up on top.
  • 01:23:05
    are under three feet.
  • 01:23:08
    The freed setback is five feet adjacent to this complex.
  • 01:23:12
    So it's within the ballpark of the setbacks.
  • 01:23:15
    In fact, you've got more space than you have with some of these other buildings.
  • 01:23:25
    Now, Alison Union is going to say a few words about the roofs, the windows and the porches.
  • 01:23:32
    But suffice it to say, again, looking at the specific guidelines of the ADC, the Architectural Control Guidelines, and applying them to the roofs, the windows and doors and porches, you will find that in fact, this fits in to the general scape of the neighborhood.
  • 01:23:58
    I'm going to turn it over to Alison Union, the architect at this point, and then I have a few comments at the end, if you would permit me.
  • 01:24:04
    There are people here
  • 01:24:07
    who would like to speak to this project.
  • 01:24:09
    Now I know this is not a public hearing and so I'm going to defer to the chair because I think if you open it up then everybody in the world wants to speak.
  • 01:24:17
    I only point that out because I think it's important to know that this project has had feelings in lots of different ways and they're supporters of this project who aren't necessarily here because they aren't aggrieved parties within the context of the ordinance.
  • 01:24:36
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_23
  • 01:24:43
    Mayor Norris, members of City Council, I'm Allison Ewing of Hayes Room Design Studio with architects for the Freeds.
  • 01:24:51
    The Freeds came to us because they were looking, they're getting a little older, and they were looking to be in town and looking to be closer to the services offered by the city.
  • 01:25:11
    They have three children and five grandchildren who, and they're a very close family and I have trouble getting meetings with them because the family's always visiting.
  • 01:25:22
    So they wanted a house that could accommodate their family.
  • 01:25:25
    Their family's coming from all over and they come in cars and that is why they have requested to have a three car garage and the
  • 01:25:40
    There are two visible drives on the street.
  • 01:25:44
    One is for a parking spot for the accessory unit and then the second drive is tucked into the side of the lot and leads to a garage which is not visible from the street.
  • 01:26:00
    We met with regard to the process.
  • 01:26:02
    I feel that
  • 01:26:05
    The DER and the neighbors to a certain extent, and I like Fran's analogy here, we're midwives, if you like, of the project and that we've had numerous meetings as Delegate Toscano has described and we've met with people independently.
  • 01:26:27
    In the initial meeting they expressed concerns about the garage and the size
  • 01:26:34
    We made changes.
  • 01:26:41
    This was the first design where the garage was facing the street.
  • 01:26:48
    Based on feedback we moved that to the side of the building.
  • 01:26:54
    There was also concern about the horizontality of the project and I can describe in a minute the changes we made in that regard.
  • 01:27:04
    There was also concern about differentiating the mass, reducing the visual mass, and we created a porch expression on one side, which you see on the upper end of Second Street, quite a lot of examples of.
  • 01:27:22
    There'll be a porch, which is a horizontal mass, and then there'll be a more vertical mass.
  • 01:27:28
    And we moved towards that kind of massing
  • 01:27:31
    To articulate, the building has really two masses, given it's a larger site, given its size, we thought the best way to address the visual mass of it was to break it into essentially visually two separate pieces.
  • 01:27:51
    At that first meeting, the neighbors made comments about size and garage.
  • 01:27:57
    Then we met with them subsequently.
  • 01:27:58
    They listened.
  • 01:28:00
    They were interested in the development of the project.
  • 01:28:03
    They're nice people.
  • 01:28:05
    I like them quite a bit.
  • 01:28:07
    But they actually, up until the appeal, had been fairly quiet about their concerns.
  • 01:28:20
    I wanted to stress that Fred Schneider had mentioned they had expressed these concerns about size at every meeting.
  • 01:28:29
    In fact, if you go back in the BAR notes, you'll see they expressed concerns at the initial meeting, and that ends a letter, I believe, at the final meeting.
  • 01:28:41
    We reduced the house by 1,000 square feet.
  • 01:28:44
    There's been some numbers thrown out today which are inaccurate.
  • 01:28:50
    and in fact the staff report was inaccurate in terms of square footage.
  • 01:28:56
    The living space for the main house is 4891 square feet.
  • 01:29:04
    The apartment is 857 square feet and then the garage is 1681 garage and storage, much of which is not visible and below grade.
  • 01:29:19
    and that is because the site terraces considerably and so it's from the front elevation the mass is a three-story volume here and
  • 01:29:47
    At the rear on the second level it's a two-story volume and then at the rear it's a one-story volume.
  • 01:29:55
    So much of the mass of the house is actually within, tucked under the grade of the house.
  • 01:30:14
    So in this process with the BAR, and I wanted to note that I was on the BAR a number of years ago and I have to say that this BAR has been really tough and it's been interesting being on the other side and I think they have quite a challenge because there's considerable diversity
  • 01:30:43
    The considerable diversity that you can see in the neighborhood.
  • 01:30:50
    For instance, there was discussion about porches.
  • 01:30:53
    Well, this has a second story porch.
  • 01:30:56
    This is the house to our right.
  • 01:30:58
    There are two empty lots, and then this house to the north of the project.
  • 01:31:07
    and then these are the townhouses to the south of the project.
  • 01:31:12
    This is one of the larger houses, no porch.
  • 01:31:16
    This is Mr. Schneider's house, no porch.
  • 01:31:28
    We have really tried hard to harmonize the building with the site.
  • 01:31:37
    and with the neighborhood.
  • 01:31:39
    So we've created, many of the houses on the site have a vertical expression here.
  • 01:31:50
    These are two buildings in the back, but you can see the height, the vertical expression of that.
  • 01:31:57
    So we picked that up as a dominant feature in the house and then adjacent to it have put what we're
  • 01:32:06
    approaching as a garden element, part of the terracing of the site.
  • 01:32:18
    So that as the site terraces down, it has its own green roof, which is then part of that expression.
  • 01:32:25
    We're bringing the stone walls, these are stone walls here, out into the site, out into the street, so arguably making them more visible to the public.
  • 01:32:44
    The house also harmonizes with its landscape.
  • 01:32:51
    If you have visited the site, there's a central stair and these stone walls.
  • 01:32:56
    That stair is the central access to the circulation spine stair of our house and then let's say
  • 01:33:04
    mentioned the stone walls marched out onto the street.
  • 01:33:08
    So we've not only looked to cues from the neighborhood, but also cues to the site, which we see as architects or as important cues.
  • 01:33:18
    We look beyond, if you like, the architecture of the neighborhood to the site itself.
  • 01:33:24
    So we have sought to honor the topography of the site by understanding its site cues and by incorporating stone walls and terraces.
  • 01:33:36
    The design is modern, yet contextual.
  • 01:33:39
    There is a good deal of diversity in the neighborhood, as I indicated in those images of existing houses.
  • 01:33:48
    The neighborhood has been infilled over time and has a history of that, and at each time a house is built, they are built in styles, often up their period.
  • 01:34:01
    And this house also seeks that kind of
  • 01:34:03
    relevancy that it is an expression of its time.
  • 01:34:20
    I think one of the major tasks for the BAR given the diversity of the neighborhood has been what is the
  • 01:34:30
    In my opinion, how do you with such diversity come to understand what feels appropriate for the neighborhood?
  • 01:34:44
    is appropriate for the neighborhood.
  • 01:34:45
    We also think to the larger context.
  • 01:34:47
    And for me, the Jeffersonian architecture is the classic Virginia and Charlottesville architecture.
  • 01:34:54
    So we have sought to honor that in the design.
  • 01:34:57
    So for instance, these houses have prominent friezes, and then a roof line, the slope of the roof is
  • 01:35:07
    often not visible from the street.
  • 01:35:09
    So we sought to pick up that same language with a prominent frieze and overhang some kind of modern structural struts that then recall the dental work that you see in the traditional houses, hugging the windows, which have a vertical proportion up against the frieze, all of which you see in this example.
  • 01:35:37
    We've also said to incorporate a porch and it is true that our interim design had stairs from grade up to the porch and however the problem with that design was that the owner who has trouble climbing stairs wanted to be able to go into his front door without having to
  • 01:36:07
    and get to his elevator without having to go through the garage and so we got rid of the stairs but we feel that the garden, the terracing of the
  • 01:36:25
    The landscape of the site, as you see here, shows that it will both feel knitted to its site, but also this porch will provide connections to neighbors.
  • 01:36:40
    And then quickly, I'd also like to note that the project will be a significant improvement over the existing with nine parking spots now versus one visible.
  • 01:36:53
    I'd also like to note that there are quite a number of two off-street, two-spot parking.
  • 01:37:03
    In fact, Mr. Schneider has that.
  • 01:37:06
    And in our case, only one car will be visible.
  • 01:37:11
    The stone walls will be visible.
  • 01:37:14
    A little bit about the sustainability, the roof form here.
  • 01:37:23
    This will have solar panels.
  • 01:37:26
    We think it's important.
  • 01:37:27
    We try to, where possible, make sustainable strategies visible so that they can also provide opportunity to tell people what's going on.
  • 01:37:37
    It's a teaching opportunity.
  • 01:37:39
    This has a green roof over here.
  • 01:37:44
    We are also looking into geothermal.
  • 01:37:52
    Cisterns for water collection for use in landscape irrigation, sustainably harvested woods, reclaimed woods, and recycled material.
  • 01:38:02
    The envelope will be very energy effective.
  • 01:38:05
    We'll be using structural insulated panels in the walls and the roof.
  • 01:38:11
    And so it would be a very tight construction, optimized equipment lighting.
  • 01:38:18
    And finally,
  • 01:38:20
    Moving forward, the project was approved 7 to 0 for the demolition of the stone walls and the reuse of the stone on the site.
  • 01:38:30
    7 to 0.
  • 01:38:31
    And then by a vote of 6 to 1, the amassing was approved with the placement of window openings and interiority.
  • 01:38:40
    There are aspects which we will be going back to the BAR for.
  • 01:38:50
    I wanted to just give you a look at some of the changes that we will be going back to the PAR for.
  • 01:38:59
    There are changes pertaining to the porch.
  • 01:39:05
    We've removed a couple columns.
  • 01:39:08
    We think that that's an improvement.
  • 01:39:11
    We need to go back for this corner detail here, which we've been working on easing that condition.
  • 01:39:20
    The lowered panels have been somewhat, have been questioned.
  • 01:39:26
    They're there both for solar reasons because it's an eastern exposure.
  • 01:39:31
    We're trying to limit the direct solar penetration and also for privacy.
  • 01:39:38
    We're looking at using plantings instead as a way to, deciduous trees as a way to
  • 01:39:48
    to limit the direct solar gain.
  • 01:39:52
    We were also asked to look at the window openings in the stone wall.
  • 01:39:57
    So if they've been enlarging, they're taller, they're more up them.
  • 01:40:04
    And then the color, there's a couple of BAR members were unsure about whether the color made it feel more visually massive onto the street.
  • 01:40:15
    So we're looking at lighter colors that maybe blend with the stone.
  • 01:40:22
    And I'd like to turn it back to David now for a conclusion.
• • SPEAKER_24
  • 01:40:30
    Thank you.
  • 01:40:30
    This is not a filibuster.
  • 01:40:32
    This is the end.
  • 01:40:34
    I appreciate your time and listening to this tonight.
  • 01:40:36
    It's an interesting, down in Richmond a couple of weeks ago we were debating LEAD and I think only five of the delegates may have had any clue what this was about.
  • 01:40:45
    And yet we had a thorough discussion with neighborhood folks about LEAD and sustainability and I think the debate again shows the special quality of Charlottesville and the skill and expertise of a lot of folks.
  • 01:40:56
    It also shows the skill and expertise and commitment
  • 01:40:59
    of a citizen board who's done what you've asked them to do, and that's watch out for the urban landscape, watch out for the protection of the historic districts.
  • 01:41:10
    You've only seen this project for maybe the last couple of days, but there have been a lot of eyes on this project for a lot of months, and that includes a BAR that you've been empowered to ask them to approve various projects.
  • 01:41:28
    Not everybody agrees, but hopefully you will support what they've decided by 7-0 and 6-1 votes to grant the certificates of appropriateness in this matter.
  • 01:41:42
    Thank you very much.
• • SPEAKER_18
  • 01:41:53
    Mayor Norris, Members of the Council,
  • 01:41:56
    My name is Fred Wolf.
  • 01:41:57
    I'm the Chair of the Board of Architectural Review.
  • 01:42:00
    I think both sides made very eloquent statements and I think the project has been explained thoroughly.
  • 01:42:09
    I also want to say that I'm here to represent the BAR and not necessarily aligned with either side.
  • 01:42:16
    I'm here to explain what the Board deliberated over, what our thoughts and concerns were, and why we ultimately made the decision that we made.
  • 01:42:26
    I think that we debated the concerns that were expressed and were sympathetic to both sides.
  • 01:42:33
    The viewpoints that were expressed both by the appeal as well as the applicant.
  • 01:42:41
    Ultimately though we decided that this project did in fact obviously meet the requirements in terms of the approval that we gave it which was conditional.
  • 01:42:55
    in terms of its massing, its scale, its proportion, the dimensions and spacing of the openings, the way it fit within the context of the street.
  • 01:43:08
    But the conditional approval was so that we could continue to look at those other issues that will help to nuance the design to affect the texture of this building and the way it fits within the texture of the street, the layering that happens both throughout the landscape and in the way the facade is made.
  • 01:43:25
    I think that Mr. Toscano spoke eloquently and I think pointed out some great points in terms of the difference in character both of Second Street as it's closer to High versus as it moves away from High towards the property that we're discussing and East to West which has a strong change in topography
  • 01:43:48
    and a different type of setback condition both from the street and from the side yards if you look at the existing properties as you move from high towards this application.
  • 01:44:00
    We felt like we saw this project three different occasions.
  • 01:44:05
    We had a number of concerns that revolved around the dominance of the garage in the initial schemes as well as the mass.
  • 01:44:17
    and we worked and talked with the architects and listened to the neighbors about ways that we could mitigate that or that it could be mitigated.
  • 01:44:27
    And that they were addressed in terms of beginning to identify or to describe this one building in two masses, one lower on the left, one taller on the right, with some articulation of the separation in between.
  • 01:44:43
    The garage was moved around to the side,
  • 01:44:47
    ultimately created a driveway but the driveway was going to be there regardless of the size of the garage and the number of cars that were ultimately put underneath the footprint of the building did not, while I think there are sustainability issues related to that argument, it did not architecturally drive us because there needed to be a drive regardless of whether there was one garage door and space for one car or additional vehicles.
  • 01:45:16
    And I think that from a perspective looking at the drawings and illustrations that are provided today, I think that you can see that in comparison to the other properties, both the one on the left, which is the four unit, the townhouse building, as well as the other unit, which I know was shown to you, which is further down on the right and is very modern.
  • 01:45:39
    It's three stories.
  • 01:45:40
    There's a garage door as it meets the street.
  • 01:45:43
    and a recessed balcony above it which serves as a type of porch space.
  • 01:45:48
    One of the things that gets lost here is that there's not necessarily one identifiable thread of style that exists in this street or in this neighborhood.
  • 01:45:57
    It's great because of a variety of styles and diversity.
  • 01:46:01
    And I think that what we saw here was a building that was taking its cues from some of the historical pieces, some of the more modern pieces,
  • 01:46:10
    reinterpreting those in a way that was not simply mimicking the historic architecture but was trying hard to pay some homage to it and yet be something that was independent and had its own authenticity.
  • 01:46:25
    And so ultimately we felt like, within the context of what we approved, which was conditional in terms of conceptually where it was at the time, that this project and this building fit within the streetscape.
  • 01:46:41
    and that there are things that the architect has done to mitigate the overall scale and I think it's been discussed that the lot is considerably larger than some of the others.
  • 01:46:54
    I think that the perception will be one of a couple of units that are combined by an interstitial space in the middle which will help break that down.
  • 01:47:04
    and I think that you know the thing that starts to get lost is the change in topography over on the east side of the street where the house is set up and away from the street and up on a hill and the change in scale that happens there a lot of the houses on the side that we're on pull close to the street and particularly here as they bring beds in the hill I think it's doing what it can to preserve the hill behind
  • 01:47:26
    and is actually making quite an interesting sort of urban space right along the sidewalk.
  • 01:47:31
    We will look at the landscape as that comes back to us as part of the other number of details that we're going to see.
  • 01:47:39
    But, you know, the board has appointed us, as Mr. Sandler pointed out, to use our professional judgment within the context of the guidelines.
  • 01:47:48
    And I think while it's debatable whether additional compromises could have been made,
  • 01:47:52
    that we felt that the project at the point where we got to after two preliminaries and then the review of the application that we saw in March had met the benchmarks and the standards established by the guidelines in terms of the spacing, the proportions, the scale as it related to the surrounding properties and I don't think it's a black and white issue and I think this is a project that does for the whole board a very good job of
  • 01:48:20
    of managing a lot of different conditions in a street that isn't necessarily as perfectly historic or having one identifiable character.
  • 01:48:31
    I think it's a beautiful street.
  • 01:48:33
    It's got tremendous houses on it.
  • 01:48:35
    And I think that, again, we empathize with both the neighbors.
  • 01:48:40
    It's an unusual position.
  • 01:48:42
    Typically, I'm up here
  • 01:48:45
    defending our decision to
  • 01:49:05
    In the interest of just being fair and disclosure, Sid Knight, who was not at that meeting, I think had expressed and probably would have not supported this.
  • 01:49:14
    And at that time we still did not have a replacement for Wade Tremblay.
  • 01:49:19
    So, but at the same time, when it came time to make the vote and decide whether or not to move this forward, our decision was that it had met those criteria and the guidelines don't allow us
  • 01:49:31
    to go in and to design the project or redesign it on behalf of either the applicant or the neighbors.
  • 01:49:38
    What we have to do is look at it relative to the guidelines and decide if it's met those benchmarks and minimum standards and then allow it to move forward and hopefully it moves forward in a dialogue between the neighbors and the architect and the applicant.
  • 01:49:53
    I'm happy to answer any questions.
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 01:50:00
    I'll be very brief because I'm sure you're tired of this discussion and you've got a lot on your agenda.
  • 01:50:04
    But first of all, I found that discussion interesting because in some ways you're being asked to review things that we've actually never argued with.
  • 01:50:13
    We never argued with the contemporary expression of this house.
  • 01:50:16
    We're not asking it to look like all the other houses on the street at all.
  • 01:50:21
    We've also never argued about setbacks or spacing or anything of the sort.
  • 01:50:26
    We're concerned about two very clear issues and I think we express those.
  • 01:50:31
    Secondly, in terms of support from the neighborhood, NDRA was mentioned and so forth.
  • 01:50:36
    NDRA has supported us all along and has made that clear at every meeting and so we want that to be clear.
  • 01:50:44
    We've also got a number of neighbors here.
  • 01:50:46
    If people could stand up who came in support of this.
  • 01:50:53
    Thank you.
  • 01:50:54
    In terms of us being quiet, as Alison said, there's a series of correspondence to the BAR that went to the BAR before every single meeting and every single letter discusses the issue of scale.
  • 01:51:10
    and I think you should have that series of correspondence.
  • 01:51:13
    I included it in my packet, so hopefully you've had a chance to look at that.
  • 01:51:18
    So we were just expecting that the BAR would have a thorough discussion of this and that we wouldn't have to argue it for them, but we did in a series of correspondence.
  • 01:51:29
    Again, just pointing out that the townhouses next door are for individual residences and sit in a different kind of spatial relationship to their lot.
  • 01:51:41
    This was corrected that the parking for this new residence is at the side and not in the back.
  • 01:51:47
    and what that means is the open space around the building is largely paved vehicular type space except in the front where they do have several garden spaces with trees.
  • 01:51:59
    We do acknowledge that.
  • 01:52:02
    So I just wanted to make those couple of points.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:52:04
    I had a quick process question for you, Ms. Walker.
  • 01:52:08
    Are you appealing both certificates of appropriateness or just the one relating to the structure?
• • SPEAKER_03
  • 01:52:13
    Just the one related to the structure.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:52:18
    Mr. Tolbert, do you have any final comments?
  • 01:52:21
    Okay, so thank you all for coming, and just to be fair, I know Delegate Disconnell mentioned that there were people here from the neighborhood in support of the project, and since everybody in supporting the appeal got to stand, if there's anybody that would like to stand in support of the project, you're certainly welcome to do so at this time.
  • 01:52:40
    Thank you.
  • 01:52:41
    Okay, so I've asked our city attorney to sort of summarize what specifically our purview is tonight because there's a lot of discussion, very interesting discussion around this project, but actually our purview here tonight is somewhat limited and I've asked our city attorney to explain exactly what our purview is.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 01:53:04
    Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for clarifying one issue.
  • 01:53:08
    There were apparently two votes taken by the BAR in this matter, one involving a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of some walls and the second one approving a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction.
  • 01:53:22
    And as I read the appeal, it was centered on the second of those two certificates, the one approving the new construction.
  • 01:53:33
    Frequently I think in discussing this, and it is a little bit unusual, typically you have a property owner who has been denied a certificate that appeals to city council.
  • 01:53:45
    In this case the certificate was granted to the extent that the neighbors
  • 01:53:51
    are contiguous property owners or live in close proximity to this development.
  • 01:53:56
    I do believe they're within the definition of agreed parties and have the right to pursue this appeal.
  • 01:54:04
    Frequently, when these appeals do come up, you hear councils' purview stated as a de novo review.
  • 01:54:12
    And that's reflected in our city code.
  • 01:54:15
    It says, in considering an appeal of a decision of the DAR, the city council shall review the application as if the application had come before it in the first instance.
  • 01:54:27
    And I think what that means is you certainly listen to and take into consideration what the BAR found in the basis for their decision.
  • 01:54:37
    But it's not a situation where you're limited to determining whether the BAR acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or contrary to what the law is.
  • 01:54:49
    You're only making the decision about whether the certificate should be granted.
  • 01:54:54
    The legal standard in my opinion is I think pretty simply stated and perhaps more of a challenge to apply, especially in this case where you've got such good presentations and it's I think a really interesting question, but what state law dictates is that our ordinance can provide, and it follows this, that a building cannot be erected in a historic district.
  • 01:55:21
    unless approved by the review board or on appeal by the governing body, and that's where we are now, as being architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings, or structures in that district.
  • 01:55:37
    And I think most of the discussion tonight centered around that issue, whether the proposed design is architecturally compatible with the rest of the historic district, and you heard
  • 01:55:51
    arguments about massing and scale and relationship to other properties and relationship to the lot.
  • 01:55:59
    I'll note that both sides seem very willing and anxious to discuss issues of sustainability.
  • 01:56:08
    And I know that's an important consideration at a lot of levels for this city council.
  • 01:56:15
    I think you can consider
  • 01:56:17
    Any factors that are related to this standard of architectural compatibility?
  • 01:56:25
    Sustainability, I will candidly say, seems like somewhat of a reach to me in terms of whether that affects the architectural compatibility of this design with the rest of the neighborhood.
  • 01:56:38
    So I will try to answer any questions that you might have.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:56:44
    Any questions for the city attorney before we move into our discussions?
  • 01:56:51
    Okay, thank you, Mr. Brown.
  • 01:56:54
    I'm going to open it up now to counselors, and if you have thoughts or questions you'd like to share, and who would like to go first?
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 01:57:01
    Dr. Brown?
  • 01:57:03
    I'd just like to make a brief comment and then hear more from what my fellow counselors say, that philosophically,
  • 01:57:13
    No, I feel like the City Council needs to be careful about overturning decisions by the BAR or the Planning Commission if those are strong decisions by the BAR and the Planning Commission.
  • 01:57:24
    I think recommendations that come from Planning Commission, decisions that come from the BAR when they're strong, when they're not split votes, not four or three votes, but when they're strong votes, in my opinion, we need to do more than just reconsider what they considered.
  • 01:57:40
    because it kind of starts to make me feel like, well, why are they in the first place if what we're going to do is just reconsider what they did.
  • 01:57:46
    But hopefully we consider it, if there's a reason to try to reconsider their opinion, that it be based on something that they really didn't spend a lot of time considering.
  • 01:57:56
    We have bigger issues, even though the city attorney is going to turn down the sustainability issue.
  • 01:58:02
    But that would be an example of a bigger issue that I would want to have some reason.
  • 01:58:06
    Sometimes it's easy to do.
  • 01:58:08
    For example, the BAR may deny a permit for someone to demolish a building and we may decide that for economic development reasons we think that that's a good idea and that's a nice easy one where what we're considering is a little different than what the BAR considered.
  • 01:58:23
    So I would just urge my fellow city councilors to kind of keep in mind that the thoughtfulness that the BAR, and I think it's a strong group, have given this as we discussed where we want to go with this.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 01:58:38
    Thank you, Dr. Brown.
  • 01:58:42
    Anybody else?
  • 01:58:47
    Not all at once.
  • 01:58:49
    Mr. Huja?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 01:58:51
    If you insist.
  • 01:58:55
    I can't disobey our mayor, you see.
  • 01:59:04
    Mr. Mayor, this is a very interesting case.
  • 01:59:08
    and an interesting review for the council.
  • 01:59:13
    And I think we have three wonderful parties to this project, as you know.
  • 01:59:19
    Each one of them has presented a really very good case.
  • 01:59:25
    I have been in this situation many times, not as a council but as a commission staff, and I must say this is one of the finest presentations I have seen from all three sites.
  • 01:59:35
    So it makes life difficult.
  • 01:59:38
    and as Sidney Turner has said, the basic criteria which we need to go by is architecturally compatibility to the context of the situation in this neighborhood and I have in the last few days, a few weeks I have looked at this project, I learned a great deal and every time I listen to other people I do learn new things and my thoughts have, my knowledge has grown and hopefully my
  • 02:00:08
    Thought process has been improved in this process.
  • 02:00:14
    First of all let me say that I do agree that this is a quite legal, infant project and it meets many of the criteria which are outlined in our guidelines.
  • 02:00:29
    It is a modern design and I personally like modern design because I don't want to repeat Mr. Jefferson for the next 200 years.
  • 02:00:36
    You can learn from him some new ideas, but I think we need to encourage diversity, but compatible diversity.
  • 02:00:45
    And that is the key, whether this is compatible or not compatible.
  • 02:00:48
    As a question of mass and scale, I must say that I do not agree with the labels that size is a major factor in massing, because they have split the size into two forms, one vertical element and one horizontal element,
  • 02:01:05
    I think it's really, the science is not just why, to their concern, it is what is concerned neighbors.
  • 02:01:13
    On the other hand, again, there are BAs, reviewed, number of issues, scale, context of street.
  • 02:01:23
    My primary concern at this time is context of the street, how it relates to the street and how other houses relate to the street.
  • 02:01:31
    This house basically turns its back on the street level.
  • 02:01:36
    with what is being called as a basement.
  • 02:01:41
    It's really the street level, this is the way the street is.
  • 02:01:44
    So how you relate to the street and the neighborhood is of important concern in terms of scale of things as well as the details.
  • 02:01:53
    For example, as I was driving down the street on both sides, one of the houses had porches at the street level, all had some entrances,
  • 02:02:05
    so it worked the scale of the buildings to a whole scale and I think that and those concerns, which concerns me that I'm not sure it moves to the whole scale at the street level and it is the wall is fairly blank I do observe that the lens drawing the architect showed is a significant improvement and that's why I would think that
  • 02:02:30
    For example, the window details would lower, if I may, they did not keep in character of this neighborhood, but I think in the drawing which I see now, it is more in keeping with that context of the neighborhood.
  • 02:02:46
    So what I would say, there are a number of issues which still need to be resolved, but I think this building has great potential.
  • 02:02:53
    I would suggest that it would benefit from at least one way of removing a BAR, because
  • 02:03:01
    In a way, the right direction, if it can improve the street level, that is, maybe, I don't want to suggest things, but just a notion of things like poachers projections which will break up the front so that it will lead to more human scales of the street and keeping with the adjacent houses in context, it will be much better.
  • 02:03:23
    I would urge my colleagues from the Council, instead of taking action today,
  • 02:03:30
    We need to be deferred so the council and the applicants and the lawyers can put a load on this project because I don't think any requirement is there that we need to act it right because I think since we are moving in the right direction we need to improve by a little bit more time.
  • 02:03:50
    I don't think I have spent six months on it but six weeks won't do that much when we improve the project.
  • 02:03:57
    I think there are possibilities and potentials
  • 02:04:00
    We could improve the project in terms of scale, the human scale, in terms of context, in terms of street, as well as areas which I would like B.A.R.
  • 02:04:09
    and its applicants to look at for further refinements, and details like windows and porches.
  • 02:04:17
    So that would be my suggestion, if B.A.R.
  • 02:04:21
    An applicant and neighbors can't come together in the next few weeks.
  • 02:04:26
    We always have the option to act back again on this project, which I have approved.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:04:34
    Mr. Brown, can you comment on the legality of this suggested approach in terms of not taking action tonight?
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 02:04:44
    The answer is just correct.
  • 02:04:46
    There's not a time limit under which you must take action.
  • 02:04:52
    you know the appeal is pending so that will still be the case even if it is sent back to the BAR for some further type of refinement I guess I wasn't quite clear whether you were looking for refinement in terms of the conditions that the BAR placed on the project or whether some change in design
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:05:19
    What I would be looking for is search channels which BAR has already identified, for example the window details, number of corners details, type of landscaping, but also beyond that I would like to see
  • 02:05:35
    again they already have architects who don't mean my opinions too much but I will just mention them anyway it would be nice to have some projections of poetry on the street level which will break the facade and be more neighborhood friendly so those kind of things I would say
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 02:05:55
    Well, as I say, unless the appeal is withdrawn, it will have to come back to you for a vote, in my opinion, either up or down on the certificate of appropriateness.
  • 02:06:05
    Whether additional review would inform your decision on this appeal, that, of course, is up to council.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:06:13
    Thank you.
  • 02:06:14
    Mr. Taliaferro, Ms. Edwards, do you have any thoughts you'd like to share?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 02:06:23
    I guess that I would
  • 02:06:26
    I'd really like to see it go back for further review.
  • 02:06:31
    My personal opinion that the scale and mass concerns me a little bit, but I would like for it to go back to the Board of Architectural Review and let them look at it again and see if they can come up with any refinements to it.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:06:48
    Ms. Edwards, Dr. Brown, do you have anything else?
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 02:06:50
    Well, I kind of have a question that maybe someone could shed some light on.
  • 02:06:56
    The BAR, when they approved this, they placed some conditions on it.
  • 02:06:59
    Maybe someone could speak to this.
  • 02:07:01
    And it seemed like one of the conditions, at least from what I read from the minutes, maybe there's a better place to read this from, with the requirement of conditions and aspects pertaining to the port structure, it sounds like
  • 02:07:18
    Even as approved, it comes back to the BAR relative to the porch, but maybe Mr. Tolbert or someone could speak to what that entails or does that meet what you're looking for?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:07:35
    What I'm saying is that those details have not been worked out and it would make a difference if those details have been worked out.
• • SPEAKER_18
  • 02:07:45
    It is true that the porch was one of the issues that I think was up for debate and there was some variance of opinion on amongst the board although I think that the comment that's being made here is about the relationship of the porch to the street and I think that in the notes that the aspects or the details that we're looking to come back have to do with
  • 02:08:15
    the types of details in terms of the trellis and the column and the way those pieces are put together and what you're going to see, but not necessarily its relationship relative to the street.
  • 02:08:26
    So that would be, I would think, more of a change to the way you would think about the massing in the organization, which may be an easy thing for the architect to agree to include in the conditions that are addressed.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 02:08:42
    that's part of what happens going forward but right now the way I think that we put it in the conditions more had to do with the details as to the way the parts went together and the way they were articulated but not where the porch sat relative to the street I guess I just offer my comments I think the one comment maybe we all should address you know if we were to defer it would be where we stand on the massing and scale I agree with Mr. Huja I think that
  • 02:09:10
    You know, even though the property next door is four units, it's still a building, which is large.
  • 02:09:18
    And for that reason, I don't think this property, at least to my unprofessional eye, seems out of scale.
  • 02:09:25
    And I say my unprofessional eye, which is why I think, you know, I do rely on the Board of Architecture Review, which I think is, you know, a preponderance of the design professionals to give some guidance as to issues of scale and mass.
  • 02:09:38
    And I would note that there
  • 02:09:41
    The first thing in their motion to approve this was that they find that it satisfies the BAR's criteria and guidelines in respects to the project's massing.
  • 02:09:50
    That's the first thing mentioned.
  • 02:09:53
    So it does seem like that's something that the BAR considered.
  • 02:09:56
    So I'm comfortable with that.
  • 02:09:59
    At this point I'm
  • 02:10:01
    You know, I support the BAR.
  • 02:10:03
    I'm open-minded to having it go back to the BAR.
  • 02:10:07
    I understand the concern that Mr. Huja is trying to address.
  • 02:10:11
    I just think we need to be clear on what we're asking if we'd like for this process to continue.
  • 02:10:17
    And I think in past times we've had, you know, someone can come up and say, we'll agree to include that.
  • 02:10:24
    As Mr. Wolf suggested, it might be a way of moving forward with it without having to formally defer the decision.
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 02:10:33
    I too hope that some additional compromises can be made because this is part of the fabric of that neighborhood and I struggle with this because of the 61 boat, the BAR, and I am so far from being an architect that I rely on the BAR to give me that information to make a good decision
  • 02:11:02
    But the citizens in the community rely on me to make votes that will make the fabric of the community and all the way that we connect and what makes that neighborhood unique continue to do so.
  • 02:11:17
    So I'm hoping that there isn't logical for us to believe that some additional compromises can be made.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:11:26
    Let me ask because I think Dr. Brown raised a good point about in terms of specifically what compromises we are asking them to make because there have been a couple of key issues raised one relating to mass and scale and so far there's not unanimity on council relating to that one yet but um the other issue has to do with
  • 02:11:48
    in relationship to the street and the pedestrian experience.
  • 02:11:52
    In your mind, do you have a sense of which of those or maybe there's others that you'd like to see the VAR take another look at?
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 02:12:00
    Oh, okay.
  • 02:12:09
    Yes, because that neighborhood has unique walkability.
  • 02:12:16
    It is something
  • 02:12:17
    It's especially unique about that neighborhood and to try to continue to create a structure that will not only fit in with the uniqueness in terms of the structure and how it looks and the setback and all that, but how it also fits into the fabric of the neighborhood.
  • 02:12:44
    The way a building looks and the way it's designed, it really does give the neighborhood different feelings, is for lack of a better word.
  • 02:12:52
    But it really does.
  • 02:12:54
    And if there's a way that we can compromise so that at least everybody's closer to feeling that it's going to fit into the neighborhood, that compromise is part of that fabric of the neighborhood also.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:13:13
    Just to further clarify my comments, besides what P.A.R.
  • 02:13:19
    has already put conditions on, I would like to explore the possibilities that have gone that far.
  • 02:13:27
    The windows, the ground level, as the size and whether they will have movers or not have movers.
  • 02:13:34
    Most of the houses I saw had some kind of overhead on the entrance.
  • 02:13:40
    I note in this drawing, at least what I saw,
  • 02:13:42
    Henry Woodhage on the entrance so it will protect the owners from the weather as well as provide human scale.
  • 02:13:52
    I think those kind of things could be looked at if they help us even longer.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:14:00
    Mr. Taliaferro, did you have any comments about the issue of the size and scale versus the issue of relationship to the street or are they both of equal concern to you or are you mostly concerned with one or the other?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 02:14:11
    Well, they're both of equal concern to me.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:14:14
    Okay.
  • 02:14:16
    Thank you.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:14:21
    Does the motion need for defer?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:14:25
    Let me share my comments first.
  • 02:14:29
    I agree with the comments that have been made by my peers with regard to how effective the presentations were at night and a lot of compelling issues.
  • 02:14:43
    were raised.
  • 02:14:45
    To me, the biggest issue has to do with the relationship to the street and the experience, the pedestrian experience and the relationship to the lot.
  • 02:14:58
    I have to say, because of the quality design work that's gone into it, I am less concerned with the square footage and with the mass of the building than I am with the way it relates to the street.
  • 02:15:11
    I am not hearing a whole lot of concern on that one issue other than maybe Mr. Taliaferro
  • 02:15:20
    maybe Miss Edwards, I'm not totally sure but I do hear a lot of concern relating to the way that this structure relates to the street which I think I hope will not require a whole lot of redesign given the fact that earlier iterations of the project did I think present a more compelling face to the street and so
  • 02:15:47
    I would certainly, I don't know if we need a motion to defer or, so I would entertain a motion to defer, but I think that Dr. Brown raised a good point in terms of we need to give some specificity to the BAR in addition to the considerations they're already undertaking on design issues.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:16:08
    May we have your attention please?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:16:09
    Sure.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:16:10
    I'd like to know that we defer this item when we request BAR
  • 02:16:15
    and the applicants to work on this project further in terms of scale of the building as it relates to the street and do articles and details as to making more human scale and the relationship with the street and the neighborhood and I would be interested personally to see if there are ways to break the ground level façade or at least make it more
  • 02:16:43
    Transparent and Opaque.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:16:55
    You had a line that you personally feel.
  • 02:16:59
    That's part of the motion as well, is that correct?
  • 02:17:03
    That is.
  • 02:17:03
    So can you just restate the motion without the qualifier?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:17:07
    Well, why?
  • 02:17:08
    I'm making a motion, so I should be able to add to my qualifiers.
  • 02:17:12
    Because if I don't agree to it, then it will feel like it.
  • 02:17:16
    Just for the record.
  • 02:17:18
    Okay.
  • 02:17:19
    Of course, if we defer this item back to BAR,
  • 02:17:24
    For applicants and neighbors in the B.R.
  • 02:17:27
    to work together on improvements in the area of how the building lifts the street on a scale to
  • 02:17:35
    and details which are wicked world street friendly and I personally would like to see also some kind of projection of which we don't know.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:17:52
    Thank you Mr. Hirsch.
  • 02:17:54
    No, I'm not going to go there again.
  • 02:17:57
    Is there a second to the motion?
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 02:17:59
    Can I just call up a question?
• • 02:18:04
    Sure.
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 02:18:04
    So can additional compromises be made?
  • 02:18:07
    Is this something that we can logically move forward and do?
  • 02:18:10
    Because even with the motion, there's so many ways you can have opinions about what the streetscape looks like.
  • 02:18:19
    So with the BAR, is this something that's really going to be a logical thing to do?
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 02:18:24
    I think what we're asking is that the BAR consider these things.
  • 02:18:32
    I think it's, the BAO has already approved it.
  • 02:18:59
    Okay, so when it goes back to them, they're unlikely not to approve it.
  • 02:19:02
    They're likely to talk about maybe, I mean, I'm not sure what's going to happen next that's going to influence our decision.
  • 02:19:08
    I like the idea of maybe giving some direction in terms of the conditions the BAR is going to consider later, but I'm not really sure about deferring it for our decision.
  • 02:19:20
    I'm not sure if we're contingent, our decision is contingent upon, and I think that's what we should think about.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:19:29
    This could depend on how it relates to the street, how it relates to human scale, how it relates to the details.
  • 02:19:36
    They don't have to follow all our advice, but at least they can explore those.
  • 02:19:41
    Not only beer, but also applicants.
  • 02:19:43
    If an applicant doesn't want to do it, beer can't do it, I don't think.
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 02:19:48
    I don't think the directions contain any emotion, from my view.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:19:55
    Okay, motion has been seconded.
  • 02:19:57
    Any further discussion?
  • 02:20:00
    Please indicate your vote.
  • 02:20:04
    Motion carries.
  • 02:20:05
    Thank you all.
  • 02:20:06
    So we will look forward to seeing the BAR try to take one more stab at this.
  • 02:20:13
    You guys are earning your salary on this one, folks.
  • 02:20:16
    Thank you all, and we'll try it again.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 02:20:31
    The bill is still pending.
  • 02:20:35
    We'll decide it at a later meeting.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:20:43
    Let me take a seven minute break.
  • 02:21:01
    We'll be reconvening at 9.30.
• • 02:21:15
    I'm
  • 02:22:17
    Dua Dua Dua
  • 02:23:13
    Fifeville
  • 02:24:13
    Music playing...
  • 02:24:48
    P.A.E.
  • 02:25:41
    Ooh
  • 02:26:15
    and David
  • 02:27:24
    you
  • 02:27:58
    Oh,
  • 02:28:42
    B.A.A.A.
  • 02:29:52
    I am here today to talk to you about the
• • SPEAKER_01
  • 02:30:21
    I've never seen anything like this.
• • 02:31:00
    P.S.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:31:30
    Continue on with the rest of our agenda, if I can find my agenda.
  • 02:32:01
    The next item on our agenda is a public hearing resolution regarding adoption of the community development document, consolidated and action plans, first of one meeting, Ms. Secrese.
• • SPEAKER_29
  • 02:32:22
    Good evening.
  • 02:32:22
    The consolidated plan is a document that sets forth the community development goals for the next five years for the low to moderate income individuals within the planning district 10, which includes the city.
  • 02:32:36
    And this document serves actually as our application to HUD for our community development block grant funds as well as the home funds.
  • 02:32:44
    and that is due to HUD on the 15th of May and so we're coming forward to you all for approval of this document.
  • 02:32:52
    The consolidated plan is divided into two sections, one being the strategic plan and the other being the action plan.
  • 02:32:58
    We come forward to you all every year with an action plan which denotes the actions that have been approved by the CDBG task force as well as yourselves as the housing initiatives that are going to go forward for the next year.
  • 02:33:12
    Whereas the strategic plan is a three to five year document and they both come forward at the same time and that document includes longer term goals and it's used every year to facilitate through the action plan and we put these plans together with the
  • 02:33:33
    Planning District, it's a joint document so that we are able to include documentation from the surrounding counties as well as the city.
  • 02:33:43
    And that includes information on homeless, special needs population, housing, as well as community development.
  • 02:33:51
    and we're here this evening for a public hearing on this.
  • 02:33:54
    One public hearing has already been held at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and from that public hearing there were a few additions to the plan that's not included in before you but I'm going to go over those.
  • 02:34:07
    There are only a few very brief ones.
  • 02:34:10
    Green County asked that there was an additional statement put in referencing Standardsville area.
  • 02:34:17
    There was an update to the action plan that included information from the housing conference that was held on March 13th and this was just the final data that was added into that and also some demographic data that we received late from the AIDS HIV services group.
  • 02:34:36
    and that information has been included in the final document which will be forwarded to HUD.
  • 02:34:43
    So at this time myself as well as Billy Campbell and Jennifer McKeever is here as well are available to answer any questions you all may have and take any additional comments that you may have concerning this document and we also are scheduled for a public hearing this evening.
  • 02:34:59
    Thanks.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:35:01
    Thank you Ms. Creasy.
  • 02:35:02
    Any questions for Ms. Creasy before we open up to a public hearing?
  • 02:35:08
    Thank you.
  • 02:35:09
    We'll now open the public hearing.
  • 02:35:11
    I don't believe anybody signed up to speak, but if there is anybody from the public that would like to speak, now is your chance to do so.
  • 02:35:19
    I will now close the public hearing.
  • 02:35:21
    Any discussion?
  • 02:35:23
    I'll move the resolution.
  • 02:35:24
    Is there a second?
  • 02:35:25
    Second.
  • 02:35:26
    Any discussion?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:35:27
    I'd like to make one comment.
  • 02:35:30
    I would request staff and the task force to pay special attention to strategic plan in the future because I think that sets the tone for what could happen to these monies, as to just the action plan.
  • 02:35:42
    And I would just make a request as to why they support the plan.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:35:48
    Thank you, Mr. Huja.
  • 02:35:49
    And I would also just like to touch base with you sometime before you submit because there are a couple of references in here that were pulled from last year's plan that are actually no longer
  • 02:36:00
    Thank you to the task force for all your work on this project and to the Planning District Commission as well.
  • 02:36:20
    Next we have a public hearing and ordinance on construction easement to Virginia Department of Transportation for the Meadow Creek Parkway.
  • 02:36:26
    It's the first of two readings and Craig Brown is going to get us started.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 02:36:33
    Next morning members of council will stay through the Department of Transportation, VDOT has requested the conveyance of certain easements for the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
  • 02:36:43
    These easements will be located on property that is titled in the name of the City of Charlottesville but located in Albemarle County.
  • 02:36:52
    The parcel lands on the eastern side of Melbourne Road immediately to the south of the Charlottesville High School Athletic Stadium.
  • 02:37:01
    Specifically, the easements that have been requested by VDOT include a permanent easement of approximately 1.796 acres for the actual road right-of-way, a permanent easement of a little over 2.5 acres for drainage, stormwater management and slopes, slightly over a half an acre for permanent utility easements,
  • 02:37:25
    and a temporary construction easement of approximately 3.7 acres for construction of the road and the multi-use walking trail.
  • 02:37:34
    And I believe there are maps behind you that show the location of these easements.
  • 02:37:40
    VDOT has requested that these easements be donated or conveyed without consideration by the city.
  • 02:37:48
    Since the request involved a parcel of land that's been used by the Charlottesville school system, BDOT's request has been considered by the city school board.
  • 02:37:58
    Last Thursday they passed a resolution expressing their consent to the conveyance of the easements, a copy of which has been provided to you.
  • 02:38:07
    Their consent as expressed in the resolution was contingent on four conditions.
  • 02:38:13
    and the resolution also contains six expectations regarding the road project.
  • 02:38:19
    Those four conditions that were imposed by the school board have been set forth in the ordinance that is proposed for your consideration tonight and if I may I'll just briefly state what those four conditions are.
  • 02:38:34
    You want to note that no part of the road project that would include the Albemarle County, Meadow Creek Parkway section, the City of McIntire Road extended section, and the interchange or intersection project at the 250 bypass of McIntire Road
  • 02:38:50
    will be open for public use until the entire project is complete and ready for opening.
  • 02:38:56
    Two, that safe and efficient means of passage for bicycles and pedestrians will be created and maintained at the intersection of the Parkway and Melbourne Road as well as around Charlottesville High School property generally and around CATEC property.
  • 02:39:10
    At a minimum, there will be well-marked crosswalks with pedestrian-activated time crossing lights at the Melbourne intersection and the entrance to CATEC.
  • 02:39:19
    Three, that appropriate landscaping and planting will be done to screen the parkway from the playing fields.
  • 02:39:25
    And four, that the speed limit will be 25 miles per hour on the parkway approaching the intersection in both directions at Melbourne Road.
  • 02:39:34
    and approaching in both directions the entrance to CATEC marked by standard school zone signs with flashing lights.
  • 02:39:41
    As I said, those were four conditions placed in the resolution of the school board as conditions to their consent.
  • 02:39:49
    There's one additional condition which is being proposed by city staff and that is set forth in number five in the draft ordinance.
  • 02:40:00
    which states that the deed of easement conveying the permanent easement for construction of the road right of way will specifically provide that the duly constituted authorities of the city of Charlottesville shall have and retain exclusive control, jurisdiction and dominion over the intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway slash McIntyre Road extended and Melbourne Road for purposes of maintenance and the control and regulation of motor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
  • 02:40:30
    In summary, the city would have jurisdiction over the control of that intersection with Melbourne Road in terms of how pedestrian and motor vehicle signals are implemented in things such as crosswalks and flashing lights.
  • 02:40:48
    City staff and meet-out officials are present here tonight to answer any questions that you may have, and as you referenced, this matter has been scheduled for a public hearing.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:41:00
    Mr. Brown, there were also a number of, I believe they call them, expectations in the school board resolution and can you describe what those were and also what your thinking was in not referencing those in this resolution?
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 02:41:14
    As I read the resolution passed by the school board, it was my interpretation that those expectations are not conditions on their consent, but as they are described, expectations
  • 02:41:32
    as for the school board in terms of the road project and the expectations that there will be a bona fide and good faith reasonable effort to fulfill those certain factors before the project comes to fruition.
  • 02:41:52
    I can certainly review those if you would like.
  • 02:41:54
    I have a copy of the resolution here.
  • 02:41:56
    If you don't mind.
  • 02:41:58
    This paragraph, and this is from the school board's resolution, states, be it further resolved that the board's consent to the conveyance as described herein is with the further expectations that one
  • 02:42:09
    If other practicable pedestrian-bicycle connections are identified, the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and VDOT will earnestly commit to working together to secure funds as required either through VDOT contingencies, state enhancement grants, or other local public and private sources as necessary.
  • 02:42:30
    And I think if anyone heard the discussion before the school board,
  • 02:42:34
    Those bicycle pedestrian connections that are referenced
  • 02:42:41
    mean connections from both sides of the parkway which would facilitate students at the school getting access to the multi-use trail that is located on the other side of the parkway.
  • 02:42:55
    The second expectation was that suitable replacement athletic field space will be created and made available to meet the needs of Charlottesville high school athletic programs or suitable existing athletic field space will be made available.
  • 02:43:08
    3.
  • 02:43:09
    Truck traffic will be prohibited along the entire length of the parkway 4.
  • 02:43:14
    Public transportation opportunities and or carpooling will be encouraged to thereby cut down the number of vehicles using the parkway 5.
  • 02:43:24
    The replacement parkland being acquired for the city as part of the Meadow Creek Parkway project and the land designated for the linear park on land already owned by the city
  • 02:43:35
    will be placed in a conservation easement or will be otherwise similarly protected against development into the future.
  • 02:43:43
    And six, that ongoing and timely school board input into the design, location, and funding of the intermediate bicycle-pedestrian connections, as well as the final design of the intersections of Melbourne Road, Grier Road, and the Parkway will be ensured.
  • 02:44:01
    and those were the six, as I say, paragraphs that were added as expectations by the school board.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:44:08
    And so if we chose, we could add those as expectations to our resolution, although they would not be binding as you say.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 02:44:17
    Yes, sir.
  • 02:44:18
    As you may recall, Council took action, I think it was last October, on a temporary construction easement for the roadway, the portion called McIntyre Road extended, which goes through McIntyre Park.
  • 02:44:32
    And in that particular resolution, you included both conditions and expectations, and you certainly have that option here as well.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:44:41
    I think.
  • 02:44:42
    Any other questions before we open up to a public hearing?
  • 02:44:46
    All right, we'll now open the public hearing.
  • 02:44:48
    Again, we ask speakers to limit their remarks to three minutes and the first speaker is Colette Hall.
• • SPEAKER_28
  • 02:45:01
    Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councillors.
  • 02:45:03
    Colette Hall, 101 Robertson Lane.
  • 02:45:06
    At the May 1st school board meeting, board members wrestled with the idea of voting to allow VDOT, the use of almost nine acres, to build the Meadow Creek Parkway.
  • 02:45:17
    The five voting members all stated, quote, I was not elected to decide transportation issues.
  • 02:45:23
    They clearly felt uncomfortable in making this decision as well as wanting additional information.
  • 02:45:30
    They queried as to why the decision had to be made that night and could not a work session between the school board and city council be scheduled.
  • 02:45:39
    A new idea perhaps, but not unreasonable.
  • 02:45:43
    At another school board meeting, board members required as to why the city is asked to donate a portion of land rather than to be monetarily compensated for it.
  • 02:45:53
    Ms. Tucker, city staff, said the city would receive about 50 acres of extra park land, which is now county land.
  • 02:46:01
    However, these 50 acres is the same land that VDOT will exchange with the city to compensate for land lost from East McIntire Park when building the Meadow Creek Parkway.
  • 02:46:15
    These acres are on slopes, rocky, and irregular.
  • 02:46:19
    The bottom land is the creek.
  • 02:46:22
    And I have emailed you the maps of this land that I obtained from former counselor Lynch and it's actually up behind you.
  • 02:46:31
    Ask yourselves, is this a fair exchange?
  • 02:46:34
    I hope that the City Council takes a field trip to the proposed land swap site before you vote.
  • 02:46:42
    A school board member told me, CATEC was paid or will be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a sliver of land, mainly for easement purposes.
  • 02:46:52
    If the state can take school land by eminent domain, then as a Charlottesville taxpayer, I ask that your no vote required that the city at least be paid the fair market value for all land.
  • 02:47:06
    How will traffic concerns and other covenants the school board requested be enforced?
  • 02:47:12
    What law can the city and the citizens rely on?
  • 02:47:16
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:47:17
    Thank you, Ms. Haller.
  • 02:47:17
    Stratton Salaitis?
• • SPEAKER_20
  • 02:47:25
    Hello, Stratton Salaitis, 704 Grave Street.
  • 02:47:29
    I would like to add to what was just said about the park land.
  • 02:47:33
    There is also no replacement park land slated for the interchange at all that would be in the park.
  • 02:47:40
    And as she said, the quality of the land is not the same as that which it would replace.
  • 02:47:46
    And it's in the county.
  • 02:47:50
    How is that a good deal for the city to be trading land that's in the city accessible, very accessible to downtown?
  • 02:47:57
    something that's considerably further away.
  • 02:48:00
    And I know I've said this a lot in terms of increasing traffic in the city, but this parkway would increase traffic in the city.
  • 02:48:09
    And that's just a fact.
  • 02:48:12
    Why would the city do that?
  • 02:48:15
    Why would we want to bring more cars downtown?
  • 02:48:18
    Can downtown handle more cars?
  • 02:48:20
    I think it can handle more people, but where are they going to park?
  • 02:48:23
    Where are they going to drive around?
  • 02:48:24
    In terms of the economic health of downtown, I think downtown is doing very well.
  • 02:48:29
    I think if we were to increase traffic downtown, that could actually undermine some of the gains that we've done there.
  • 02:48:36
    And not only that, but in terms of the economics of the situation, the Parkway would act as a bypass for city residents who might go and shop in the city
  • 02:48:46
    at Barracks Road and Seminole Square.
  • 02:48:48
    Well, once they get on that parkway, now they're county shoppers instead.
  • 02:48:53
    In terms of this easement,
  • 02:48:55
    I've heard people say to you before, well, you better just go ahead and do this, or the county is going to build their section anyway.
  • 02:49:01
    That is very faulty.
  • 02:49:03
    This land is the city's.
  • 02:49:06
    It's in the county, but it belongs to the city.
  • 02:49:08
    If VDOT wanted to take it through its domain, they would have to pay for it.
  • 02:49:12
    There was no money for that.
  • 02:49:14
    And I would say that, you know, at least then you'd be getting paid for the land, but that's not going to happen.
  • 02:49:18
    This is still in the city's hands.
  • 02:49:20
    Is the city committed to building this?
  • 02:49:22
    in terms of the relationship with the county.
  • 02:49:25
    The county was supposed to build the 20-yard bypass.
  • 02:49:29
    They did not.
  • 02:49:30
    The eastern connector, again, it doesn't look anywhere in sight.
  • 02:49:34
    Do we want the city to be taking that extra traffic burden to increase sprawl in the county?
  • 02:49:42
    Do we want the city to pay $13 million out of its urban transportation fund that could go to improving life in the city?
  • 02:49:51
    I think instead of granting this easement, I think what's needed is a conservation easement through the park that would allow no road but a Meadow Creek bikeway instead.
  • 02:50:02
    And I hope that that could be the future for this area is a bikeway.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:50:07
    Thank you.
• • SPEAKER_21
  • 02:50:19
    Good evening, I'm Peter Kleeman.
  • 02:50:20
    I live at 407 Head Street in the city.
  • 02:50:23
    And I'd like to address one of the concerns of the school board, which was safety at the intersection of Melbourne Road.
  • 02:50:30
    I have been interested in safety issues at that proposed intersection for several years and have on occasion several times a year asked if there were any studies of the operation or the proposed operation of a signalized intersection for the designs being proposed
  • 02:50:51
    and as yet I have never seen or know of any existing operation study which could be done very easily.
  • 02:50:59
    I've requested of the city traffic engineer that this would be a perfect project for an intern to do.
  • 02:51:05
    They could probably do it in two hours if they had all the information at their fingertips.
  • 02:51:10
    I've asked VDOT in the past if they were planning on doing this and I've gone through various local residencies and they requested that if there is one they'd like to get it because they have a citizen who'd like to see the operational characteristics.
  • 02:51:25
    There are 2100 vehicles in the peak hour anticipated to be running through the Meadow Creek Parkway through that intersection.
  • 02:51:34
    There's a fair number of vehicles, I don't know what the expectation is for going crosswise on Melbourne Road.
  • 02:51:39
    But at 25 miles an hour, 2100 vehicles in an hour going through a signalized intersection is going to be a relatively congested intersection as far as I can tell, and I believe it's not going to be operating at any level of service we would like to invest in.
  • 02:51:55
    So my concern is that
  • 02:51:58
    If you're going to make a transportation decision here that the school board opted, we're not making a transportation decision.
  • 02:52:03
    If you are making a transportation decision, I think it's really important that you have at your fingertips what the operational characteristics and what the safety implications are of having this road run through that intersection.
  • 02:52:16
    You have, just in Mr. Brown's presentation,
  • 02:52:20
    that you would be running this signalized intersection and maintaining the road and as far as I can tell you're not aware as a political jurisdiction what it is that you're agreeing to operate there, whether that's going to be safe or unsafe.
  • 02:52:39
    So my concern is that if
  • 02:52:41
    If there is no understanding of what the safety concerns are, I'm curious about how much queuing will take place, especially in the southbound lane of this Meadow Creek Parkway heading toward where the intersection is.
  • 02:52:53
    There's a very steep downgrade.
  • 02:52:55
    It's approximately 1,000 feet up, just above 7% slope.
  • 02:53:01
    I live on Head Street in the city at a 7% slope, and when it's a little bit rainy or icy, people do not make it up with the hill in front of my house.
  • 02:53:08
    And if people are going downhill, they tend not to stop in the amount of stopping distance that's typically expected by a motorist.
  • 02:53:15
    So if we have a thousand foot decline at a 7% plus grade, coming to a flat area where the cues are going to be forming for cars waiting to cross the intersection, I think it's really imperative that we know what some of our cueing behavior is going to be, and how long that's going to
  • 02:53:30
    exist in that peak hour.
  • 02:53:32
    Thank you.
  • 02:53:32
    Thank you, Mr. Cleaner.
  • 02:53:33
    John Thompson.
• • SPEAKER_17
  • 02:53:40
    Mr. Mayor, City Councilors, my name is John Thompson.
  • 02:53:43
    I live at 1504 Grove Road in the city.
  • 02:53:46
    I have a son who's in the 10th grade, a daughter who's in the 8th, both in the public schools here.
  • 02:53:51
    Last week, the school board repeatedly said that they refused to make transportation decisions.
  • 02:53:57
    In essence, they've turned this decision back over to you.
  • 02:54:00
    Nine acres is a large amount of land in a rapidly growing city.
  • 02:54:05
    With infill and increasing urban density, the school's population is bound to grow too.
  • 02:54:11
    If anything, Charlottesville High School will need more land in the future, not less.
  • 02:54:16
    If five years from now the school needs additional practice fields or land for buildings, where will that land come from?
  • 02:54:23
    Will it be sliced off from an already chopped up park?
  • 02:54:28
    VDOT may be replacing some park land,
  • 02:54:30
    but that land will not be usable for school purposes.
  • 02:54:33
    I ask that you please not sign the land away until VDOT is guaranteed to replace that acreage with equally good contiguous land and provide several more acres as a buffer between the school and the highway.
  • 02:54:48
    The replacement land should be provided before construction begins.
  • 02:54:52
    Bringing noise pollution and extra traffic into a school area is a bad idea.
  • 02:54:57
    The least we can do as a community
  • 02:54:59
    for our school children is to provide them with a safe and peaceful learning environment.
  • 02:55:04
    And so I ask you not to sign, not to simply provide an easement on that land.
  • 02:55:09
    And I would also request that at the very least that you would make these additional expectations to the resolution that the school board made, that you would make those expectations binding.
  • 02:55:19
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:55:20
    Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
  • 02:55:21
    Doris Reed.
• • SPEAKER_09
  • 02:55:28
    Hello Mayor and Council, Ernest Reed, 610 Ferris Street in the city.
  • 02:55:33
    I deeply appreciate the specific comments on the easement before you tonight and I would like to raise some questions that are perhaps of a larger, maybe more general nature relative to this aspect in the entire project.
  • 02:55:50
    And I'd like you to ponder these in your decision.
  • 02:55:54
    First of all,
  • 02:55:55
    Does the approval of this easement further complicate the intent of Paul Goodlow McIntyre and his bequest of lands of the city for the building of the Meadow Creek Parkway?
  • 02:56:10
    Does the granting of this easement violate the intent of City Council and all of us to only consider the Meadow Creek Parkway in the context of an Eastern Connector and a Western Bypass?
  • 02:56:23
    Does the project further distance us from a positive transportation future with transit, pedestrians, and bicycling providing the major mode of moving people from place to place?
  • 02:56:36
    Will this proposed road and adjacent interchange and all the subsequent and corresponding costs, overruns, and debts eventually lead to bankruptcy or default in the city?
  • 02:56:53
    Will the Meadow Creek Parkway in itself prevent Shanks Branch and Meadow Creek from ever becoming a complex of natural urban streams, unpolluted, healthy, and beautiful?
  • 02:57:03
    Is it prudent to join into a covenant overland with VDOT, an agency which calls a closed door and a stenographer a public hearing, and has the arrogance to acknowledge that their process is in the best interest of the agency and not the public?
  • 02:57:18
    Does continued reliance on investing precious resources in infrastructure that provides the greatest convenience for single occupancy vehicles commit the city to a long-term reliance on higher levels of, increasing high levels of gasoline consumption?
  • 02:57:36
    Is this a time to be committing our money and our land to furthering our dependence on gasoline energy expenditures and the corresponding and consequential city and citizen credit and debt?
  • 02:57:48
    pushing us all so closer into default foreclosures and bankruptcy?
  • 02:57:55
    And is it ethical or prudent to separate one large project into small, bite-sized projects for the sole purpose of political and economic expediency?
  • 02:58:11
    Finally, this is a good idea to give the county a right-of-way through McIntire Park for the purpose of moving traffic from the east side of Pantops to the north side of 29 North and through the interior of the city.
  • 02:58:25
    As a note, when I did some research on this, I went to the city's Parks and Grounds website and saw the logo of our city as a park.
  • 02:58:34
    And I couldn't help but think that cutting down the trees and removing the trails
  • 02:58:39
    would actually be more appropriate to say our city is a road.
  • 02:58:44
    I quickly want to mention some words by Wendell Berry, who is someone who I respect highly on decisions of infrastructure and human intent in a not so human world.
  • 02:58:56
    He says, once our personal connection to what is wrong becomes clear, then we have to choose.
  • 02:59:01
    We can go on as before, recognizing our dishonesty and living with it in the best we can
  • 02:59:08
    Well, we can begin the effort to change the way in which we live and in which we think.
  • 02:59:14
    And as I also sat here and was looking at the comment here about the vision for city council, and I would say that denying this would be in keeping with the Charlottesville city council vision as a leader in innovation, environmental sustainability, and social and economic justice.
  • 02:59:33
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 02:59:33
    Thank you, Mr. Reed.
  • 02:59:36
    That's the last person to sign up to speak.
  • 02:59:37
    Is there anybody else that would like to speak during this public hearing?
  • 02:59:43
    Okay, we'll close the public hearing and open it up to questions or comments from city councilors.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 02:59:50
    Mr. Mayor, I agree with you that we should include those expectations as part of our resolution.
  • 02:59:55
    Then what will we adopt?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:00:02
    Mr. Taliaferro?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 03:00:03
    I just agree with that.
  • 03:00:04
    We need to have an expectation
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:00:07
    Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, any comments, questions?
  • 03:00:12
    Motion?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:00:14
    I move that we allow the authorizer of these books to read up as outlined in the presentation.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:00:23
    Is there a second?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:00:23
    With the, with the, including expectations and the results.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:00:29
    Is there a second on that motion?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 03:00:33
    I'll second.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:00:35
    Any further discussion?
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 03:00:38
    How will we know?
  • 03:00:42
    Is there going to be something formally presented so that all the expectations are going to be in writing?
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 03:00:52
    This is an ordinance so it will need to come back to you at a future meeting for a second reading.
  • 03:01:01
    The ordinance which I sent to council this weekend sets forth the four conditions, or actually it has five conditions.
  • 03:01:13
    on the approval of the easements.
  • 03:01:15
    And I understand it's in the motion and second to move this ordinance forward.
  • 03:01:21
    There's a direction that also the six expectations of the school board be included in that ordinance.
  • 03:01:27
    So when it comes back to you at the next meeting for a second reading, you will have those six expectations included within the ordinance.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:01:40
    Any further thoughts?
  • 03:01:42
    It now carries forward to our next meeting.
  • 03:01:45
    But if you have any further thoughts, please offer them.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:01:49
    Mr. Mayor, I will not be here at the next meeting, so if you need my help, I'll be here next time.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:01:56
    Okay.
  • 03:01:58
    I'd just like to say I want to thank the members of the public who spoke tonight, and for many of the reasons spelled out by Mr. Salinas and Mr. Reed and others, I will be voting against this resolution when it comes back to us.
  • 03:02:11
    So we'll take that up at our next meeting, and thank you again.
  • 03:02:16
    The next item is also related to the Meadow Creek Parkway, which is a resolution approving the McIntyre Way extended pond design, the first of one meaning Jeanette.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:02:29
    Yes.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:02:30
    Janice.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:02:30
    Janice, check.
  • 03:02:31
    Close.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:02:31
    I always get that wrong.
  • 03:02:32
    I'm sorry.
  • 03:02:33
    Janice, check.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:02:33
    Not a problem.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:02:35
    Take it away.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:02:36
    Okay, I'm here looking for your recommendation, or for your approval, for the committee's recommendation for the stormwater management redesign for McIntyre Wood Extended and Auseb, Metacreek Parkway.
  • 03:02:47
    To give you a little history on the project, to refresh your memories, there was an interagency coordination meeting with state and federal agencies with the city to go over our stormwater management plan.
  • 03:03:00
    The original idea was to create a recreational pond
  • 03:03:04
    However, the agencies came back and recommended that we look at that again, that they would deny it because it wasn't environmentally friendly because it was impacting a live stream and it was also not capturing the majority of the storm water management runoff.
  • 03:03:21
    So the staff assembled a committee
  • 03:03:23
    from the community, from the city, from the county staff and also from VDOT and we proposed turning this one pond facility into a multi or several stormwater management amenities that would treat the quality and the quantity of the stormwater runoff.
  • 03:03:41
    It would be more aesthetically pleasing, blend in with the topography and with the park landscape and would be also an educational feature for the park.
  • 03:03:50
    The proposal was presented to city council and they gave us the charge, or you all did, to create an innovative, environmentally sensitive, and aesthetically pleasing stormwater management plant.
  • 03:04:02
    So the committee met out in the field to orient themselves to the project.
  • 03:04:07
    We began talking about how we would do this, what technique would be used, then locations were picked, and then plantings decided upon.
  • 03:04:17
    Essentially the process was VDOT would begin the process, come back to the committee, the committee would refine it, VDOT would go back again, incorporate the recommendations, and then yet again check with the committee to make sure that the word and intent was incorporated in the plans.
  • 03:04:34
    And from there we went from a very general idea into a very specific plan.
  • 03:04:41
    So we have things.
  • 03:04:43
    One of the objectives was the stormwater amenities should blend with landscape.
  • 03:04:47
    There should be minimum maintenance that you would create them, but then nature would take them over.
  • 03:04:53
    And we also went into very specific things such as the plantings.
  • 03:04:59
    We should do seeds and plugs.
  • 03:05:01
    We should not do the gray blue rocks.
  • 03:05:04
    We should do a more natural looking rock in the stormwater things.
  • 03:05:11
    and so therefore the committee by consensus offers up the plan that you see before you there in a conceptual way.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:05:20
    Can you address the concern that Mr. Kleeman raised about how the intersection, according to his map at least, drives traffic right through where you're proposing to do the wetlands work?
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:05:33
    Well, I didn't quite get what he was saying except on that plan and also on the plans that were distributed to you before.
  • 03:05:42
    There's a little dotted line through the road and that's the outermost limits of where we feel the interchange project is going to be.
  • 03:05:51
    So we are coordinating, yes, that project with Stormwater, with McIntire, with Meadow Creek.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:06:02
    So you don't feel like the interchange, any of the interchange designs are going to seriously impact this plan?
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:06:09
    No, that's not the plan.
  • 03:06:11
    And of course we're still in concept with the interchange.
  • 03:06:13
    If we could move to the design and we could nail down and answer more specifically your questions regarding that.
  • 03:06:19
    But right now we are coordinating.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:06:22
    Is it safe to say tonight you're just asking for approval on the concept more so than the specific geography?
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:06:28
    Exactly.
  • 03:06:29
    Does this plan reflect what you all foresaw when you gave the charge to the committee?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:06:34
    Any questions for Ms. Janicek?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:06:37
    I have a question.
  • 03:06:39
    The middle part, I was wondering, is it a wet part or dry part?
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:06:44
    Each of these are a little bit wet and a little bit dry depending on how much rain we get.
  • 03:06:49
    And that was part of the challenge was making sure that during a period of drought these things would not just completely die out.
  • 03:06:57
    So it's not like you're going to get a boat in them, but it could be marshy or wet.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:07:04
    Well, as you may or may not know, I have a history of interest in ponds and lakes.
  • 03:07:08
    So I've been looking for a pond or lake in Charlottesville for 35 years.
  • 03:07:14
    I was wondering is there a possibility to expand that to be more bigger facility than it shows here.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:07:22
    What the committee was trying to do with each of these was to kind of blend it into the landscape and to not do a lot of grading or utility relocation or any of that and again avoiding removing trees
  • 03:07:37
    etc.
  • 03:07:37
    So the committee went with a more, it's five different facilities instead of one, they're smaller in scope, and we were thinking a large one wouldn't really work.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:07:52
    So this is about 30 feet by 50 feet, the biggest pond you have.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:07:57
    Yes, we tried to, they pretty much cover an acre, I think, I want to say, of storm water runoff, a piece.
  • 03:08:08
    Okay.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:08:09
    Any other questions or a motion?
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:08:13
    I'd like to make a couple of comments.
  • 03:08:16
    If we look at the letter from Mr. Tolbert that followed our council meeting in the fall
  • 03:08:20
    We were looking, as Mr. Tolbert said, the city's not interested in a standard roadway design for stormwater, that we were looking for something more innovative.
  • 03:08:29
    And I would like to thank the members of the committee, Peggy Van Aries and Dave Hirschman in particular.
  • 03:08:36
    I'd like to thank the staff for really moving forward into uncharted territory, because VDOT has a way of doing things.
  • 03:08:44
    We asked them and we assisted them in coming up with something different and I think it was a positive experience.
  • 03:08:49
    I attended one meeting of this.
  • 03:08:51
    of this committee, and I think it's a hardworking group.
  • 03:08:55
    But I think everyone felt pretty good that they'd come up with something that's not just going to look like a ravine with rocks in it, but rather is going to both be contextual in appearance and also be sustainable, really, something we can be proud of.
  • 03:09:12
    So I'd like to thank everyone who worked on this.
  • 03:09:14
    I think it's kind of fun to see us come up with an idea and make it work.
  • 03:09:22
    Yes, I will.
  • 03:09:26
    Is there a resolution?
  • 03:09:27
    There is a resolution.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:09:29
    I'll move the resolution.
  • 03:09:31
    Second.
  • 03:09:32
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:09:33
    I want to echo Dr. Brown's comments.
  • 03:09:34
    I've made no secret of the fact I don't like this road, but I think you all have done a good job with this plan and I appreciate your innovativeness.
  • 03:09:41
    Any further discussion?
• • Holly EdwardsMember, City Council
  • 03:09:46
    I'm still having a hard time visualizing it because there's the Metapeet Parkway that's looking to change and I'm just wondering, is this, if this is just a concept for now,
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:10:03
    This is a concept but I also have construction plans here with detailed plantings and that's why this committee met for over a year and we had about six meetings and they lasted several hours each time.
  • 03:10:15
    So this concept that we have here in a more pretty picture is backed up by construction plans.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:10:23
    Can I, one other comment before we vote on this.
  • 03:10:26
    It was pointed out to me by Peggy Vannieri said
  • 03:10:31
    We've done a good job of coming up with some specific ideas and plantings for these particular areas.
  • 03:10:40
    On the other hand, we have a whole parkway and I think her point was that we should really think about
  • 03:10:48
    Plantings and planning the whole area so there's not just these little oases of plantings around the stormwater basins, but rather that the whole area has been given this kind of thoughtful attention.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:11:05
    Okay, the motion's been seconded.
• • SPEAKER_04
  • 03:11:07
    We'll now... May I have one more comment?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:11:11
    Does that repeat your name?
  • 03:11:13
    No, that's the point.
  • 03:11:16
    I've seen some
  • 03:11:18
    Stormwater Drilling Movement, I've seen some places at least, some form of, I don't want to call it a fountain, so the water can purify.
  • 03:11:33
    Is there any such thing at this point?
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:11:35
    We did not look at that.
  • 03:11:38
    The main focus for us again was making sure that we were treating the quantity as well as the quality.
  • 03:11:45
    So we as the committee really looked at what would work in this area from what the committee has already done in the past and how can we improve upon it and treat the quality as it goes into the ground.
  • 03:11:57
    We didn't look at a water feature.
  • 03:12:00
    Because we were again trying a more natural blend in with everything.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:12:05
    In terms of aeration of water which is quality control wise, what do you plan for that?
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:12:14
    The quality control.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:12:16
    The water quality.
• • SPEAKER_31
  • 03:12:17
    The water quality, all of that should be properly treated as it filters through the different substrata of the soil before it hits the actual, like a live stream or the groundwater.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:12:29
    Thank you.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:12:34
    Okay, are we ready for a vote?
  • 03:12:37
    Please indicate your vote.
  • 03:12:42
    Motion carries.
  • 03:12:42
    Thank you again for your work on this and to your committee as well.
• • SPEAKER_15
  • 03:12:51
    I thought that was a good job.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:12:57
    The next item on our agenda is a public hearing and resolution relating to at least the 201 2nd Street Northwest and Montgomery Arts Association.
  • 03:13:04
    The first of one reading, Mr. Lance Stewart.
• • SPEAKER_16
  • 03:13:15
    Good evening.
  • 03:13:15
    I really know how to empty your room.
  • 03:13:17
    It's just a few weeks in a row.
  • 03:13:19
    I've come before you asking, presenting you with the
  • 03:13:23
    Least for the McGuffey Arts Center.
  • 03:13:24
    As you have read, we've had a partnership with McGuffey Arts folks since 1975.
  • 03:13:30
    It's been very productive.
  • 03:13:32
    It is a very vibrant place, and they are very much hoping that we will approve this five-year lease to assure their future and that billing for at least that extent.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:13:44
    Any questions for Mr. Stewart before we open up the public hearing?
  • 03:13:49
    Okay, thank you Mr. Stewart.
  • 03:13:51
    We will now open up to public comment.
  • 03:13:55
    Anybody like to speak?
  • 03:13:57
    We will now close the public hearing and any questions or comments or emotions?
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:14:04
    I would like to make a motion to adopt this lease, five-year lease.
  • 03:14:08
    I also want to make a comment that I think it has been a great asset to our community to do anything to encourage, to stay in the
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:14:16
    Second.
  • 03:14:18
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:14:19
    I would like to add, I made a comment during our, I believe it was during our budget hearing about the desirability of engaging with McGuffey Arts Center on a strategic planning process and I would like to add as a
  • 03:14:34
    condition of this lease that the city work with McGuffey Arts Center to undertake a strategic planning process and I've talked with the president of the McGuffey Arts Center about this idea and I believe they're quite open and interested in that kind of an endeavor.
  • 03:14:54
    So this resolution has been moved and seconded as amended.
  • 03:14:58
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:15:00
    If not, please indicate your vote.
  • 03:15:03
    Thank you very much.
  • 03:15:04
    Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
  • 03:15:07
    Next on my agenda is the authorization of a bond issue resolution authorizing a bond issue of $22 million for capital projects, first of one being Bernard Way.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 03:15:15
    Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, we come to you every year and a half or two years to sell bonds.
  • 03:15:21
    The resolution before you tonight authorizes us to sell to $22 million in general obligation bonds.
  • 03:15:27
    $6.5 million of that is a 1998 issue which we're going to be refunding at a lower interest rate, so it's about $38,000 a year.
  • 03:15:35
    If you want the details, a memo from Aubrey and Iodice basically gives you the details on page three of the capital projects that we are authorizing.
  • 03:15:45
    The 2008 capital budget that you approved are the bonds we're selling for and 2007 public utility bonds for $3 million.
  • 03:15:53
    So it's not the budget we just approved.
  • 03:15:55
    We'll be selling those probably in another 18 months to two years.
  • 03:15:59
    We are in the process now of meeting with our rating agencies.
  • 03:16:01
    We met with one today.
  • 03:16:03
    We fully expect to maintain our AAA credit rating.
  • 03:16:08
    I'll be happy to answer any questions.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:16:10
    Any questions, Mr. Ray?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 03:16:12
    I just have one question, and it's nice you commented on it.
  • 03:16:17
    How does the city of Charlottesville compare with other comparable municipalities in Virginia, debt-wise?
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 03:16:23
    The primary reason we're AAA, Mr.
  • 03:16:27
    Counselor, is that our debt burden is much lower than most other cities.
  • 03:16:31
    whether it be somebody comparable with Charlottesville or a larger city.
  • 03:16:35
    And that's primarily why we're AAA.
  • 03:16:37
    There are many reasons, but that's one of the main ones.
  • 03:16:39
    When they actually do the ratings, they always say that within the ratings they give us.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:16:47
    Mr. Ray, just to clarify for the public, none of the projects that we're selling bonds for right now, all the projects we're selling bonds to fund are projects we've already approved in our budget.
• • SPEAKER_11
  • 03:16:57
    You approved not in the budget, you just approved in the budget, you approved 12 months ago.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:17:01
    I just want the public to understand what we're doing now.
  • 03:17:04
    I'll move the resolution.
  • 03:17:06
    Second.
  • 03:17:07
    It's been moved and seconded.
  • 03:17:09
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:17:10
    If not, please indicate your vote.
  • 03:17:14
    Thank you very much.
  • 03:17:14
    Thank you, Mr. Ray.
  • 03:17:17
    Next is an ordinance closing portion of Palatine Avenue, second of two readings.
  • 03:17:21
    Craig Brown.
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 03:17:24
    Mr. Mayor and members of council, this has been before you once on first reading.
  • 03:17:31
    Since then there is a proposed change in the ordinance as originally moved and seconded.
  • 03:17:37
    The ordinance closed this unimproved portion of Palatine Avenue.
  • 03:17:42
    but retained for the city a 20 foot wide easement for the purpose of a sanitary sewer main.
  • 03:17:51
    The purpose of that easement has been expanded to include the additional purpose of a pedestrian walkway.
  • 03:17:59
    We also got some additional information since the first reading about the sanitary sewer and the applicant has proffered that so that will be required
  • 03:18:09
    You had a speaker during the public hearing on the first reading ask whether there would be, in fact, a city sewer main placed in that unopened portion.
  • 03:18:18
    The answer is yes.
  • 03:18:20
    I think they're primarily interested in a gravity feed service line.
  • 03:18:25
    I don't think there can be any representation about the nature of that line yet until the site is actually engineered, but there should be a line in place that will be a city sewer main.
  • 03:18:36
    If the change in the ordinance is acceptable, you may vote to amend it as read on first reading, and then if the amendment passes, you can have a second reading.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:18:50
    Any questions?
  • 03:18:51
    Thank you, Mr. Brown.
  • 03:18:51
    Any questions?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 03:18:53
    Yeah.
  • 03:18:53
    That also provides for pedestrian access?
• • SPEAKER_14
  • 03:18:58
    As it's being proposed tonight, yes, sir.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:19:03
    Okay.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:19:04
    Is there a second on the amendment?
  • 03:19:06
    Second.
  • 03:19:08
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:19:09
    If not, please indicate your vote on the amendment.
  • 03:19:13
    Is there a motion to approve the ordinance as amended?
  • 03:19:16
    So moved.
  • 03:19:17
    Second.
  • 03:19:18
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:19:19
    If not, please indicate your vote.
  • 03:19:22
    Thank you, Mr. Brown.
  • 03:19:23
    Thank you, Mr. Tolbert and your staff.
  • 03:19:28
    Next item is Ordinance Regarding Tax Exemption for Energy-Efficient Buildings.
  • 03:19:32
    It's the first of two meetings, Ms.
  • 03:19:34
    Crystal Riddevalds.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 03:19:38
    Good evening.
  • 03:19:38
    I'm going to try to keep up with the speed of the previous items.
  • 03:19:42
    Many of you know we have a Citizens Committee on Environmental Sustainability tasked with bringing actionable recommendations to Council.
  • 03:19:51
    And in January 2008, a proposal for a 50% energy
  • 03:19:56
    A 50% one-time property tax reduction for energy-efficient buildings was suggested.
  • 03:20:02
    The state legislation allows Charlottesville to develop a separate class of real estate to accomplish that, and the Citizens Committee strongly recommends
  • 03:20:18
    that the performance of 30% or better over the standard home be the qualifying criteria.
  • 03:20:27
    The process had been laid out in January where an application would be submitted to the building inspector.
  • 03:20:33
    They would
  • 03:20:33
    assure and verify that there was a certified professional doing the rating for the home.
  • 03:20:41
    It would then go to the tax assessor's office.
  • 03:20:43
    The proper adjustment would be made to the property and that would then be incorporated in the real estate bill that would go out the following year.
  • 03:20:52
    And so I believe you have copies of the form if anyone needs them.
  • 03:20:58
    I have extra ones.
  • 03:20:59
    We provided you a series of frequently asked questions.
  • 03:21:01
    There will be a website to host the material.
  • 03:21:04
    Applications could be accepted then as soon as June 1st and accepted until October 1 in order to be applicable for the next year.
  • 03:21:14
    This is not the end-all be-all to energy incentives, but we think it's an important tool.
  • 03:21:19
    Committee suggests it's an important tool that would apply both to residential and commercial properties.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:21:26
    May I ask a question?
  • 03:21:29
    On the last page, the second page, it says minimum code by 30% or more.
  • 03:21:36
    Is this applied to only the new employment or the home?
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 03:21:39
    It would be the entire building and so a building that needs a standard home would get a rating of 100 and then the rating of a home that's being certified or audited for this purposes would be compared against that score of 100.
  • 03:21:57
    So it's 30% better than a model home.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:22:02
    So it's not 30% better than what you started with.
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 03:22:04
    It's 30% better than... Against Virginia Building Code.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:22:09
    And this would be worked through certified home energy raters?
  • 03:22:15
    Correct.
  • 03:22:16
    Are there any in Charlottesville at the moment?
• • SPEAKER_02
  • 03:22:20
    Yes, there are about five or six and I think it's a growing
  • 03:22:23
    Mitch, so I would expect there would be more.
  • 03:22:26
    There's 18 in Virginia.
  • 03:22:28
    The Community Design Center has put together a very informative website.
  • 03:22:34
    SPARC, I think the address was shared and it's in your memo, but the local energy auditors are listed in there with their contact information and a description of what the process consists of.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:22:45
    That's a really excellent idea and I think a good step towards actually doing something
  • 03:22:51
    I think this one's talking about it, so I'd like to move the motion for adoption.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:22:56
    Is there a second?
  • 03:22:57
    Second.
  • 03:22:58
    All right, so we'll carry that over to the next meeting.
  • 03:23:01
    Thank you so much, Ms. Verivone.
  • 03:23:05
    Okay, next item is an ordinance, zoning ordinance amendments.
  • 03:23:09
    Again, the first of two readings, Mr. Jim Tolbert.
• • Jim TolbertDirector of Neighborhood Development Services
  • 03:23:14
    Well, again, we can either do the long version or the short version, since you all have heard this a couple of times.
  • 03:23:21
    This is a lot of changes to a zoning ordinance that are a result of about a year and a half's worth of work with a really good committee of folks that were put together by the previous mayor responding to some concerns from our citizens about heights and potential heights in the downtown area in particular.
  • 03:23:50
    Downtown in West Main.
  • 03:23:52
    I would like to acknowledge and thank that committee because I think that, as I say who these folks are, you can understand the amount of work and the quality of work that went into it, but Kay Salter, Charlie Lewis, Jason Pearson and Mike Osteen from the Planning Commission, Ken Schwartz and Craig Barton, both architects who were Planning Commissioners and BAR members in the past, and Fred Wolf and Brian Hogg representing the BAR.
  • 03:24:18
    and then from our staff, Mary Joy Scala and Ashley Cooper participated and then Lee Wilkerson did some pro bono work for us on doing some images.
  • 03:24:34
    The committee met a number of times.
  • 03:24:37
    They had two joint work sessions that council participated in.
  • 03:24:42
    They met with the BAR and the Planning Commission.
  • 03:24:46
    and really spent a lot of time in looking at these changes and I think what you see are some changes that will be significant in what they would protect in the downtown area but not significant in the changes and the impact to the development community and as we went through the process I think that I can safely say that over the one issue the development community was on board with all the changes so I think that's a pretty successful
  • 03:25:15
    statement that the group made by having the development community and property owners in this area supportive.
  • 03:25:23
    Just to quickly run through the changes, the highlights, if I can, in the downtown district, and the downtown, when we started out, downtown was an area that went from Jefferson Street over to the railroad.
  • 03:25:35
    We now have three recommended districts within that area, so the proposed downtown shows up as the blue on your map,
  • 03:25:44
    And in that area, the recommendation there is to go from a by-right height of 101 feet to 70 feet and then allow by SUP going back up to 101 feet where it's appropriate after going to Planning Commission, VAR and City Council.
  • 03:26:00
    The recommendation there is that the street wall
  • 03:26:03
    meaning the height of the wall, the front wall as it joins the street be limited to 45 feet and limited to be a step back of 25 feet from there and then they can go up the 70 or beyond with special use permit.
  • 03:26:19
    There is no step back prescribed for above 70 because the committee felt that that's best determined in negotiations for a special use permit that whatever, something might be appropriate in one case, not appropriate in another.
  • 03:26:32
    The 25 feet was selected as being an appropriate distance to get you back so that as you walked the mall you had the same feel, the scale and character of the mall that you have now and it was significant enough to get further back behind the building edge that you didn't see it and feel it.
  • 03:26:48
    A great example when it's built will be the hotel of doing that.
  • 03:26:51
    The landmark, the downtown hotel has that feel to it and a significant setback.
  • 03:26:59
    It was also a concern on the committee that we eliminate what the current ordinance has, which is the wedding cake effect of multiple step backs as you go up.
  • 03:27:08
    They said, let's just go with one, keep it consistent, and not have the graduated 10 more feet every floor you go.
  • 03:27:17
    That's pretty much downtown.
  • 03:27:19
    On West Main, we kept the West Main South, West Main North differences that we had, but we equalized them a lot.
  • 03:27:26
    On West Main South, the green area on the map,
  • 03:27:29
    The proposal is to go from 60 feet by right height to 70 feet there and then from 80 feet of SUP height to 101 feet.
  • 03:27:40
    And here, rather than take something off, the committee felt it was appropriate to put more height and to allow more development along West Main.
  • 03:27:48
    On the north side, also some increase, but only from 50 to 60 feet by right and then allowing up to 70 feet with special use permit.
  • 03:27:58
    Again, the concern has been on the north side that there's more residential development just behind those properties.
  • 03:28:06
    There's not the buffer of the railroad that there is on the south side of West Main.
  • 03:28:10
    And so they felt it was not as appropriate to allow the height on the north side that you might on the south side.
  • 03:28:17
    That's the only area that we really had any pushback.
  • 03:28:20
    And it was only from a couple of people in the public that wished that we'd allow the same height on north as south.
  • 03:28:27
    the committee and the Planning Commission did not feel that was appropriate.
  • 03:28:31
    The street wall is recommended at 60 feet on both of these with a step back of 25 feet on the north and only 10 on the south but the reason for that is because on the south you already have a 15 foot setback so what you see as you look down will be the same as you get up higher the upper levels of the buildings will be the same distance back from the street
  • 03:28:55
    It'll just be that the lower part on the south will be set back 15 feet and it'll be built to the property line on the north side.
  • 03:29:06
    By doing these changes we didn't feel like some of the same changes were appropriate to the Water Street part of the downtown so we're creating what would be called a new Water Street district.
  • 03:29:16
    In the Water Street district the change would go, the height would be, it's currently 101, it would go to 70 with 101 by right which is the same as downtown
  • 03:29:25
    but the street wall on Water Street would remain at 70 feet along Water Street.
  • 03:29:31
    The garage now is approximately 70 feet.
  • 03:29:34
    There was a feeling that that was an appropriate height.
  • 03:29:36
    It's not as pedestrian oriented as the Marl is and so the committee felt and the Plain Commission agreed that that was an appropriate height.
  • 03:29:43
    However, as you get to, it's broken down, as you get on the South Street side of that district, as you get up in front of the South Street properties, there's a feeling that the height, the street walls ought not be as great
  • 03:29:56
    and in fact they were set at 45 feet which matches the development plan that's in for that property now so that was accepted.
  • 03:30:04
    On the south side of South Street there was also the feeling that we had made a mistake in the 2003 zoning ordinance in those smaller houses along South Street and so we created the South Street District.
  • 03:30:18
    They were in the downtown district where they could be built, they currently are in the downtown district where they could be built
  • 03:30:24
    turned down and rebuilt to 101 feet or something behind them built to 101 feet and the committee felt and the planning commission agreed that that was not appropriate for that group of, it's a unique group of houses there that are to the west of the South Street Inn and that those ought to be preserved as best possible so the district proposed there would have a high limit of 45 feet down from 101.
  • 03:30:52
    A couple of other changes.
  • 03:30:54
    This necessitates a creation of a district that we're calling the corner district because we didn't feel like the changes at this point proposed for West Main North were appropriate to extend up into the university area.
  • 03:31:08
    It's currently West Main North and it would keep the same characteristics, same classifications, just be named something different.
  • 03:31:16
    So there's really no change to it other than the name.
  • 03:31:18
    That's from 12th Street on to Chancellor.
  • 03:31:21
    on the north side of West Main and University.
  • 03:31:24
    So you'll see that there's a new zoning classification, a new district, but it's exactly the same as what you could do there now, so there's no change there.
  • 03:31:33
    Committee felt that that area really needs some additional study and discussion since it's been designated historic in the last couple of years, that we really need to take a longer look at it by itself, that it wasn't appropriate in their scope and in their time frame.
  • 03:31:49
    The ordinances before you,
  • 03:31:51
    You go through the text of the ordinance and it's very complex with the changes.
  • 03:31:55
    Rich Harris, Deputy City Attorney, has done a great job working with us and putting it into the ordinance format.
  • 03:32:01
    I'm a lot better working off the piece of paper with the colors and the pictures on it, but I'll be glad to answer any questions.
  • 03:32:09
    Like I say, it comes recommended from the Planning Commission to you and it's been through an awful lot of debate and study.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:32:21
    Thank you, Mr. Tolbert.
  • 03:32:22
    Any questions?
  • 03:32:23
    Comments?
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 03:32:28
    I think it's a good product.
  • 03:32:30
    I like what they've done and I thank everyone for the work they've done on it.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:32:36
    I agree with Julian.
  • 03:32:36
    I think that a lot of thought has gone into this.
  • 03:32:38
    It's a very complicated subject and I think the
  • 03:32:41
    The committee really did a good job of trying to create a fair proposal and I'd like to see us moving ahead today.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:32:54
    We received a letter from the Holstinger Condominium Association.
  • 03:33:01
    Can you comment on, they'd offered a couple of suggestions relating to Water Street and not creating a canyon-like effect on Water Street.
• • Jim TolbertDirector of Neighborhood Development Services
  • 03:33:09
    I honestly think that there's a little lack of understanding that they didn't engage in the process, they were notified but didn't get involved.
  • 03:33:16
    I think their primary concern is about the 70-foot street wall
  • 03:33:23
    and I think that, I can't completely speak for the committee, but given the properties right across from the Holstinger, I don't think that there's any chance that you'll see that impact there.
  • 03:33:33
    The train stations, you know, the vacant lot has a development plan in, but not, and the train station's not going anywhere and the BAR's gonna make sure of that and I think you will too, but I think the committee felt that 70 feet was appropriate there
  • 03:33:50
    There was a lot of consideration of that issue but just not with them directly.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:33:57
    I too want to thank, publicly thank the committee for all of your excellent work on this and it's been a labor of love and appreciate all the effort that went into drafting this and I would entertain a motion to approve.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:34:11
    I'll make a comment before I leave.
  • 03:34:12
    Sure.
  • 03:34:16
    I also want to thank the committee for the great work
  • 03:34:19
    I do have one or two specific concerns which I want to share with you and I do want to direct that from the work of the committee in many ways.
  • 03:34:38
    I have two primary concerns, one is the most related to Main Street, I think that 60 feet straight wall
  • 03:34:49
    170 feet by right, if you look at the building, think of a building 60 feet and another 10 feet, it would be a stump sticking there and then I don't understand why it is not 45 feet like in West Downtown.
  • 03:35:03
    Second question I have is still a concern about 101 feet height, reduction of 101 feet height on West Main Street, not in Downtown.
  • 03:35:13
    Because my feeling is that 101 feet is a
  • 03:35:19
    It's quite a high building.
  • 03:35:20
    I understand some developers saying you need different kind of technology, more expensive technology for higher buildings.
  • 03:35:29
    So it is not good for the 70s, not good enough.
  • 03:35:32
    But like I said, what we'll end up having in a few years will be more or two tall buildings standing in the middle of low buildings.
  • 03:35:42
    It will be not a great addition to urban design.
  • 03:35:47
    So those two concerns I do have.
  • 03:35:49
    Other than that I must ask for rest of the proposal.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:35:57
    Any other comments?
  • 03:35:59
    Anybody that shares Mr. Huja's concerns would like to see us revisit those issues or are we ready to move forward?
  • 03:36:07
    I'll move the ordinance.
• • Julian TaliaferroVice Mayor, City Council
  • 03:36:10
    I'll second.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:36:12
    Ordinance has been moved and seconded.
  • 03:36:13
    We'll carry forward to our next meeting and thank you again for your efforts.
  • 03:36:22
    We will now move on to other business.
  • 03:36:24
    We have three items, I believe, on our list of other business to consider tonight.
  • 03:36:29
    First of all is a resolution that was brought to our attention by Seaville Rail and former Vice Mayor Meredith Richards.
  • 03:36:37
    There is a plan under development by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation regarding the future of our state rail system.
  • 03:36:47
    There is a fairly short window of time in which the Seville Rail and Piedmont Rail Coalition are asking localities along the US 29 Piedmont, proposed Piedmont Rail Corridor to submit resolutions in support of the establishment of enhanced passenger rail service on the corridor.
  • 03:37:08
    And this is a resolution that accomplishes that goal.
  • 03:37:12
    and if there's any questions, I can try and answer them.
  • 03:37:16
    I went to their last meeting up in Culpeper, but I'm not a rail expert, but I can certainly give it a stab.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:37:23
    Sir, what's a resolution for us to consider?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:37:28
    There is a resolution.
  • 03:37:29
    It was distributed electronically, and I don't know if you all got it in print form as well, but
  • 03:37:39
    I can read it if you like or it's rather lengthy but the gist of it is, now therefore be it resolved that the Charlottesville City Council urges the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to include enhanced passenger rail service for the U.S. 29 Piedmont corridor and the state rail plan, specifically the proposed new daily direct service between Lynchburg and Washington, D.C. and on to New York and Boston as proposed by Amtrak.
  • 03:38:03
    Be it further resolved that the Charlottesville City Council urges the Commonwealth Transportation Board to approve DRPT's recommended REF funding needed for infrastructure investments to support new passenger service in the corridor.
  • 03:38:16
    And be it further resolved that the Charlottesville City Council requests that DRPT identify the U.S. 29 corridor as the state's top priority for funding new rail service according to Amtrak's recommended short-term action plan for advancing passenger rail in the Commonwealth.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:38:31
    Well, Mr. Mayor, as someone who in the past year has probably taken a train out of Charlottesville half a dozen times, I think this is a great resolution.
  • 03:38:41
    It would be awesome, I mean, the ability to, say, get to New York or Philadelphia, if there's another way to get to Washington, it helps a lot.
  • 03:38:48
    So I'll move the resolution.
  • 03:38:50
    Is there a second?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:38:53
    Second.
  • 03:38:54
    A resolution has been moved and seconded.
  • 03:38:55
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:38:56
    If not, please indicate your support and vote.
  • 03:39:01
    Dr. Brown, thank you very much.
  • 03:39:06
    The second item on our other business relates to the city manager's employment agreement.
  • 03:39:12
    This time every year we review the performance of the city manager and determine compensation for the coming year.
  • 03:39:20
    And I want to publicly express our support and appreciation for the work of our city manager in guiding the city and helping us work through some major and minor issues.
  • 03:39:31
    More major than minor it seems like recently.
  • 03:39:35
    We have a resolution before us tonight amending and approving the city manager's employment agreement and basically it says be it resolved by the city, by the council for the city of Charlottesville that the existing employment agreement between the city of Charlottesville and city manager Gary O'Connor dated November 1, 2006 is hereby amended as follows
  • 03:39:52
    Section 6a of the agreement entitled salary is amended to increase the base annual salary of the city manager by 4% effective July 1, 2008.
  • 03:40:02
    All other terms and conditions in the employment agreement not inconsistent with this resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
  • 03:40:09
    The mayor is authorized to execute a revised version of the agreement incorporating the changes referenced in this resolution.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:40:17
    Wasn't there also discussion of sabbatical?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:40:21
    That's not considered part of the actual employment agreement.
  • 03:40:24
    Okay.
  • 03:40:28
    Move the resolution.
  • 03:40:29
    Second.
  • 03:40:31
    Move the second.
  • 03:40:31
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:40:33
    Please indicate your vote.
  • 03:40:36
    Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:40:37
    Thank you, Mr. O'Connor, for all your hard work and leadership.
  • 03:40:42
    And lastly, Dr. Brown, energy conservation grants.
  • 03:40:45
    Well, I just want to bring to, I sent an email to council, but bring it to the public's attention that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 creates energy efficiency and conservation block grants similar to the community development block grants we currently receive will be eligible for an estimated $121,000 in this block grant.
  • 03:41:10
    This black grant can be used in a wide range of ways, all of which are things we've been talking about.
  • 03:41:18
    Doing energy audits, establishing financial incentive programs for energy efficiency, doing things with transportation to implement,
  • 03:41:30
    plans to do specific things like LED lights in public lighting.
  • 03:41:37
    There's lots of ideas.
  • 03:41:38
    It's just a matter of getting specific proposals to, you know, to apply for.
  • 03:41:46
    And so I'd like, I want to bring this to your attention and also just ask the city manager to move us ahead on the path of
  • 03:41:54
    making sure we get our grant in in a timely fashion and suggest a plan for implementing this.
  • 03:42:04
    And I know it's something staff is aware of.
  • 03:42:07
    And if, Mr. Connell, if you have any comments on where we go next, certainly welcome them.
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 03:42:14
    I think our intent was to draft a letter for the mayor's signature based on the information we've been provided.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:42:21
    Can we go through the committee also in the process?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:42:25
    I think the bank itself.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:42:27
    The sustainability committee.
  • 03:42:30
    All the things that the committee has been talking about would be eligible for this.
  • 03:42:36
    And so I think we'll certainly bring this up in June.
  • 03:42:38
    The committee meets again.
  • 03:42:39
    So we'll bring up this idea, maybe get some more specificity, the types of things we'd use.
  • 03:42:45
    But ultimately, I think it'll be a council decision with a lot of staff input as to
  • 03:42:52
    What would be the best way to move forward with this type of grant?
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:43:01
    So the specific action item tonight is approval of a letter, moving forward on a letter.
• • David BrownMember, City Council
  • 03:43:05
    Yeah, and I think the letter is
  • 03:43:10
    There are three members of the Virginia delegation in Congress that are members of the Appropriations Committee and just our support for this program to make sure that this moves ahead in a timely fashion from the congressional end.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:43:28
    So we have a motion to approve the letter to that effect.
  • 03:43:30
    Is there a second?
• • SPEAKER_24
  • 03:43:31
    Second.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:43:33
    Any further discussion?
  • 03:43:36
    I want to thank Dr. Brown for
  • 03:43:39
    uncovering this nugget and this could prove very beneficial.
  • 03:43:41
    Please indicate your vote.
  • 03:43:45
    Thank you very much, Nick.
  • 03:43:46
    Any other business?
  • 03:43:48
    Yes.
• • Satyendra HujaMember, City Council
  • 03:43:49
    I'd like to request that we reschedule Merritt Parkway in June 2nd instead of next week.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:43:57
    Does anybody have any issues with that?
  • 03:44:00
    Okay, we will ask staff to move that to June 2nd.
  • 03:44:04
    Any other business?
• • SPEAKER_07
  • 03:44:06
    See you tomorrow night at your water supply.
• • Dave NorrisMayor, City Council
  • 03:44:09
    Water supply, 5 to 8 p.m. at the City Space.
  • 03:44:15
    We'll now open up to matters by the public.
  • 03:44:20
    We have three public here.
  • 03:44:23
    We'll close out matters by the public.
  • 03:44:25
    Meeting's adjourned.
  • 03:44:26
    Thank you all.
• • 03:44:37
    And now