City Council Meeting   12/2/2013

Let's have a pledge of allegiance please.

Here Ms. Smith Here Mr. Huja Here Ms. Szakos Here Ms. Galvin Here We have a few announcements we would like to share with you.

I will start this day with Mr. Norris, if he is ready for it.

I'll go first.

I do have a fun announcement.

If you would like more information or if you would like to register you can contact our Office of Economic Development at 970-3110 or you can email them at ecodev at charlottesville.org.

You can search and the applications are online and the deadline is December 15th.

You'll be getting fed all day long, so a great deal.

So a lot to fill your ears for the holiday season.

There's an appointment, Mr. Norris, would you like to share us with that?

But I'd like to move Sabrina Allen to fill the resident's position on the CRHA board.

Any discussion on that board?

I think we overwhelmed her.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Work just begins.

It was wonderful.

Thank you.

and applications you can get at charlesville.org slash n-l-i.

The first person to sign is Naomi Roberts.

Thank you.

Justin Pincham.

Thank you.

Josephine Morrison

Let Venus...

Julie Curry.

So that's all that I have to say.

Thank you very much.

The traffic coming off 250 is way too fast for people to get safely in and out.

And I think there was one other thing I was going to say.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Alex Hancock

I hear what you guys say and it would be nice if you all listened to us too.

Thank you so much.

You can take the course of action if you like.

No comment?

Actually, on Ms. Porter and Ms. Roberts, the Mickey Drive thing, I think we will have a robust discussion about that, so I'm not going to comment on that now, but we will take into consideration what you said, because I think it's important.

the 10th and Page neighborhood we didn't deny it last week or last two weeks ago what we did was we really felt we didn't have the information to make that decision and so we tabled it and I would like to see if we can put that back and make a decision one way or the other now that we've had because what we didn't have we heard that the neighborhood had met but we didn't have anybody here the person who was supposed to present wasn't here she got held up at another meeting and so we didn't feel that we had complete enough information to make the decision last time but I think now we have more so

including the street-by-street breakdown.

So we are hoping to get some more information and maybe if we can put that on the next agenda or sometime soon.

The first January agenda?

Planning Commission meeting I know got canceled because they didn't have a quorum of Planning Commissioners and they're not allowed to have a Planning Commission meeting if there's not a quorum of Planning Commissioners, so I'm not sure what we can do about that.

They do meet more than once a month.

They're all public.

year-end CIP funds I don't really feel a need to do anything different but if we were to do something different one possibility is to use we do have certain things that we pay for out of I believe out of the CIP that are water-related and if we wanted to use them for that I would have no objection I wouldn't want to add things to the CIP that are water-related so that we could use that but if they're already there I don't have any objection to that.

We saw so I'd like to get some follow-up on that and and have I don't know if our Airport representative has had a chance to see that other study that was submitted tonight but if not, hopefully he'll take a look at that and Let us know his thoughts

I asked it and could you explain that Mr. Jones?

as a year in appropriation because they weren't able to make those purchases last year because the supplies were so low.

Thank you.

So it's not in addition to what we normally would purchase for these types of supplies.

So it's not completely inappropriate, but those fees will no longer be collected out of gas bills and will be switched over to the fees.

affected property owners are notified in writing that we're going to have dueling meetings.

And we are certainly investing a lot in bike infrastructure as we do for vehicular infrastructure.

requested that, because for one, it would help pay for bike infrastructure, also it would help recover stolen bikes, and various reasons, but at that point, the bike pedestrian, or at that point, the bike committee did not support it, but I'm all for it.

I'm good.

Page, will you please read that?

Item G, a resolution, Housing Advisory Committee membership, first of one reading.

If not, is there a motion?

I'll second.

Next, we have a public hearing on a special permit for 122 Summit Street, Emily Walden.

for anyone who operates a child care use on this site.

And the third was a two-space parking reduction, which was the applicant's request.

Any questions before public hearing?

than a different license to have that many children in her...

in that particular process for their application for that expansion.

I'm not sure.

All synced.

Please go forward and speak.

Thank you.

Rebecca Dennis.

So I think that this is really a great asset to the community that you should take advantage of.

Anybody else would like to speak on this topic?

So thank you so much for your careful consideration.

Anybody else would like to speak on this topic?

But we do have to, and when we make these considerations, no matter how wonderful you are, that's going to stay with the House, so we just need to always consider that.

We have to make sure it would work with the person who might not be the best, you know, so that we'd have some control over it.

Is there a motion on this topic?

I move to approve.

Second.

Second.

Yeah, I amend my motion to include that.

Sure.

Yeah.

and with that I'll be happy to answer any questions.

So are we expecting a policeman to be able to actually measure the decibels of a dog?

So it's a determination that we have to make.

So the noise ordinance doesn't apply?

I think the noise ordinance still applies, but the noise ordinance is very liberal in industrial areas, so this is something strictly pertaining to this particular use that's, I would say, more strict.

In the noise ordinance.

In the zoning ordinance, it's just that it's reasonably soundproof.

We talk a lot about that with residential.

But it's still subjective.

I think if that does not create the type of barrier that they're looking for, staff could go in there and say, hey, can we get additional plantings in there to kind of augment that buffer that we have.

And why are we considering this before we're considering the rezoning?

You can talk about either one.

Is there, actually it seems sort of legally problematic to me.

It's partly probably so we can have both public hearings on the same night.

Okay, but shouldn't we?

Well, the condition is it has to be rezoned.

If it provides any greater comfort, Council could defer the special use permit to the same time as the second reading of the ordinance and do both at the same time.

that the day camp industry standard is between 70 and 100 square feet per dog which means it's either 21 dogs or 15 dogs when you crunch the numbers 1500 divided by 70 and 1500 divided by 100 so again where did the 40 come from because it does strike me as being an awful lot of dog that was that was a that was numbers from the applicants application package

Is the applicant here?

Maybe that's a question.

but the noise ordinance per se does not apply to noise generated within industrial districts.

But the dog ordinance would apply in an industrial corridor zoning.

Any dogs anywhere in the city.

Anybody like to speak, including the applicant?

With that I'd just like Mr. James Brown to say a remark about his business.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Anybody else who would like to speak on this topic?

Anybody else who would like to speak on this item?

So would your total of however many dogs fit within the guidelines that Ms. Galvin was talking about?

The applicant is 0.2 acres and when you do the math it's a little bit over 50.

So do you feel that 40 dogs is appropriate for the amount of space you will ultimately have with this piece plus thrust?

That is under the max, the high range of they can.

1500 is just the added square footage that you're requesting.

It did say 0.2 acres.

It's 0.2 acres.

0.2 acres.

And I just, I did the math and the diagram that was attached to it and that's where it's coming up.

Being a dog park aficionado from Azalea Park, which is apparently 0.3 acres,

You will have a certain number that would be supervised.

being at 40 at any one time is nil, to be perfectly honest.

So on an average afternoon, how many dogs are outside at one time?

Average afternoon would be between 15 and 20 times.

I think we might be more comfortable with that, which would actually probably up your total of 40, but as long as they weren't all there at the same time.

I don't have a problem with that.

that it fits within just guidelines that are nationally accepted.

I'm comfortable that there'll be no more than 25 out there if that helps you.

And including all of the other planning commission things.

It's just the, and that extra space is the 1500, right?

But presumably where the door is is near is in the part that's already permitted and so that shouldn't be how many dogs do you keep at a time?

With this start of the day camp we came down from about 160.

So you do keep dogs just during the day?

We used to, because we contracted for our day camp, we used to be at about 150.

So some dogs are out for a little while and come back in, other dogs go out and come back in.

We've got two different numbers going on.

The exhibit we applied for was 0.2 acres and when I measure the attachment to it, it was 5,700.

And you've got 125 dogs, so that would be pretty prohibitive for you.

is the existing kennel that's been in operation for 15 years.

Inside the building.

And the existing yards.

And they're not going to be coming out there?

They're rotated.

No, the day camp will be using the space outside.

Oh, it's only for the day camp.

Principally for the day camp.

And then dogs are rotated in shifts.

I'll second that.

Mr. Mayor, if I could just clarify, are we using the seven conditions proposed by the Planning Commission?

Just changing the number 40 to 25.

Absolutely.

So all seven conditions, but modifying condition number four to say 25 instead of 40.

Any further discussion on this item?

And the reason I'm saying... Oh, we're going to.

Any more discussion on this motion?

So it's 35 by 170, that's on their application.

We'll instruct staff to reflect the actual size of the dog.

We'll use .2 acres if that's acceptable.

And I do think we need to specify that because it's an SUPD.

I think it's actually 0.22 acres.

Oh, is it 0.22?

Is there any more discussion of the motion?

It just says 0.2 here.

On the map it says...

But it reflects the actual size of the...

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions?

I'll move to approve the rezoning.

Is there a motion?

I'd like to move approval of the rezoning.

This is right next to an R1, right, separated by railroad.

I mean, there's some residential in that industrial area across the tracks in the Rose Hill neighborhood, but everything surrounding it on this side of the tracks, it's industrial corridor.

and we hear a lot about it so I just think it's worth it.

It's just 60 feet?

We haven't measured.

because that's the closest house.

The reason, let's see, in your packet is a vicinity map, not off the top of my head.

If you go straight back from them, like if you're following Concord, the first house on the corner there, right next to Virginia Organizing.

M.I.

That's what I thought.

Right.

So it's not really a- So there is a- There are residences there, but it's not zoned.

It's in the packet here, so it's, you know, there is some industrial, there is some residential.

Oh, right.

That's true.

Thank you.

The next public hearing is on sale of property on 1279 Kenwood Lane.

Kathy, thank you.

Further, we would ask that the proceeds ultimately be appropriated to both Parks and Rec, Land Acquisition Fund, as well as the Charlottesville Housing Fund.

Any questions before we get comments?

So people would park on the cul-de-sac and will there be a sign?

I would imagine that would be something that could readily be incorporated.

To demark the entrance.

It goes towards the North Park, and that's not identified.

At the end of Locust Grove, there's one that does have a sign.

I know that signs are closely regulated under our zoning ordinance so whatever it is it would have to be appropriate for just the marking.

Just wondering about public access to this new park.

So in those locations along the linear nature of the park.

And it wouldn't be.

And Kenwood is quite large, kind of a size, pretty room to park.

But can you remind us how much the city paid for this property altogether originally?

I believe it was 160.

And how much has been spent on demolishing and renovating that side, the latte?

Including the asbestos testing it was around 18,000, I don't have the exact figure with

Okay, so that includes demolition and regrassing and asbestos.

Right, as well as the asbestos testing and removal, specialized removal.

And then we take a 10-foot easement out that we're keeping and we're selling the rest of it.

The Parkland Acquisition Capital Fund.

And how big is the park?

The entire park?

Greenbrier is 23 or 8.

It's almost 65 acres total.

Two miles.

House, land, a peaceful part of the land is now being headed to the park.

I didn't quite say that right.

Public hearing?

Anybody like to speak?

Thank you, ma'am.

But I think we probably all did read the email, so.

Yes, sir.

Good evening, members of the council.

So, thank you.

Does the Council have a question or comment?

if they're from out of state, it's in the hundreds of miles.

There are at least four points of access to this park, I know.

But that's my pitch for keeping this in our park system as an access point to this beautiful park.

I'm willing to certainly hear other comments, but I feel that this happens so rarely that this is an opportunity to seize to try to do that income mixing but on the other side of town.

I was sympathetic to that then when I went to see it and then when I started thinking and looking for how you get into this beautiful park and realizing there's very few ways to do it.

directing everybody to go to the park through that entrance but make sure it's accessible to people to come in there and then use that funding that we get back for the land sale to use for both more parkland acquisition and housing.

Ms. Morris?

I mean it's not, you'd have to really.

Well actually it's very close to the John Muir Parkway.

Well as the crow flies it is, yeah.

I don't know if it's big enough to be considered a critical slope, but it is a critical slope.

I don't know what's critical slope because there was a house there for a number of years.

Well that doesn't mean that the house wasn't built.

It burned down.

Would it be allowed under current law?

Yes I think it would be allowed.

You think it would be allowed but why do you think it would be allowed?

There is a question then, has staff been able to verify that this is a buildable site given our existing ordinances?

Does it apply to a single family lot?

I would have to look at the ordinance to see.

Yeah, that's a matter of point of law I'm not sure on.

Do we know?

I saw no evidence of prior flooding or any type of water damage to that.

Do you know what I'm talking about with Ken Woods coming down?

Stormwater infrastructure is in place along Kenwood, but I would assume there's some.

There's lots of blue and yellow and orange lines right now, so they mean something I just don't happen to know.

I mean, we can take a look at that and see if there's been any sort of documented issues with drainage there.

It's going to have a multi-use trail.

Can I make a few comments now?

What's that?

I think it was a great insight for housing as well as for access to the park.

It's not really, that would be like transferring money between the park fund and housing.

But again, I'm still very much supportive of selling it for a home and having access for it.

What is the suggestion for divvying up the housing fund versus part fund?

It seems like at least even the presentation tonight I mean there's been an investment of time by housing staff.

At least $18,000 to $20,000 ought to go into the housing fund because that's where that money has come from is that right?

I mean the only real investment of housing was was really staff time so

Then maybe you ought to go back to the parks.

I would be remiss not to propose it or not to try, so don't blame me for that.

I'm in fear of building a house for family and giving money back to the parks fund.

Or out of the housing department?

I'm sorry.

I just need to make that statement.

Maybe as money goes to park land acquisition, so half of your desire will be met at least.

and I will say that if we used the entire, if we gave this land to Habitat for housing we would be essentially taking a hundred some thousand dollars out of the park land acquisition fund and putting it into housing.

We bought it with house to park funds.

We bought it with land acquisition money.

So, right.

I would think that we would then have to.

But it's still a similar scenario as if you're using it for park land.

But once you sell it for housing, it's like farmland.

that serve as rain gardens and stormwater retention facilities, but we haven't done that analysis yet, and we're just kind of guessing right now.

Well, but we also talk about using parkland doubling for green infrastructure, and this is an absolutely perfect scenario for it right above a creek that we spent $3 million restoring.

Is there a motion on the floor?

Under our ordinance, since it is a lot of record, it's exempt from the steep slope ordinance for the first single-family home, with the proviso that if there is an area with slopes of less than 25%, you have to locate the home there.

But, I mean, unless you restrict it to the flat area, which would be quite prohibitive.

Is there any motion on the floor?

It's not even over there.

And I think that that, I don't know that we really need both just to stop the water.

It'll be built on.

The lower part will still belong to the city and will not be both.

I'm pretty sure the terrace is part of the lot being sold.

I'm not sure.

I would like to move that we reserve this land for parkland at this time that we keep it in the park system.

Second the motion.

Second the motion.

I oppose the motion because I think it is a good site for housing and it will allow enough access to the open space.

I've already said I would oppose that.

If not, vote.

Is there any reason why we couldn't do a duplex on that site?

You know, it still speaks to the exclusiveness of this community that now will have basically exclusive rights to a two mile park.

Is there another motion on the floor?

making this a public access to this park.

I'll second the motion.

I would accept that.

I accept that.

If that was the intent to move the ordinance.

I accept the friendly amendment by Ms. Smith.

And I did too.

Thank you.

But in some spot, it's one chance to get some of those.

Next item on the agenda is a resolution concerning the ADC standards for the design guidelines for West Main Street.

The current Architectural Design Control District guidelines were adopted by City Council about a year ago as part of a five-year update.

Ms. Smith, last time you said after two hours we should take a break.

We should be following our resolutions.

Take a five-month break.

What were you saying?

Thank you.

you

You're going to have PowerPoint presentation first.

Do you want me to start?

So this just impacts whether or not they can demolish the building.

So it's not like being an historic structure where you have to, if you want to renovate it, you have to use materials that are similar to what was there before.

So if it's a new building entirely or if they're making changes to the existing building, the BAR gets to review that.

Even internally?

and the reason they come into play in those is because the property owner has chosen to apply for state or federal tax credits.

Is that right or is that not right?

That's the only rule that this would impact.

Exactly.