City Council

Public Hearing 08/28/12 CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA HON. MARY KATHERINE GREENLAW, MAYOR HON. BRADFORD C. ELLIS, VICE -MAYOR, WARD ONE CITY COUNCIL HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, AT-LARGE HON. MATTHEW J. KELLY, AT-LARGE HON. GEORGE C. SOLLEY, WARD TWO HON. FREDERIC N. HOWE, III, WARD THREE Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street HON. BEATRICE R. PAOLUCCI, WARD FOUR Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 August 28, 2012 The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 28, 2012, beginning at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. City Council Present. Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw presiding. Vice- Mayor Bradford C. Ellis. Councilors Kerry P. Devine, Frederic N. Howe, III, Matthew J. Kelly, Beatrice R. Paolucci and George C. Solley. Also Present. City Manager Beverly R. Cameron, Assistant City Manager Mark Whitley, City Attorney Kathleen Dooley, Information Technology Director Suzanne Goodman, GIS Technician Kim Williams, Planning Director Ray Ocel, Building & Development Services Director Steve Smallwood, Site Development Manager Kevin Utt, Director of Transit Kathy Beck, Assistant Director of Transit Wendy Kimball, Deputy Fire Chief Mike Jones, Public Works Director Doug Fawcett and Clerk of Council Tonya B. Lacey. Notice of Public Hearings (D12-366 thru D12-372). The Clerk read the notice of the public hearings as they appeared in the local newspaper, the purpose being to solicit citizen input. 17957 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Final Subdivision Plat for the Proposed Subdivision of Tax Map A15-1-P6, GPIN #7778-69-0581, Consisting of 28.887 Acres, for “Telegraph Hill,” and Authorizing the City Manager to Accept Right- of-Way Within the Subdivision for the Future Widening of Lafayette Boulevard (D12-367 thru D12-368). – 5 speakers. Site Development Manager Utt gave the background on the Telegraph Hill Project stating the Planning Commission approved the 79 lot preliminary plat at its April 27 meeting. The applicant submitted its final subdivision plat and construction plan in accordance with the City Code requirements and was approved by the Planning Commission on July 25. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The minimum lot size requirements are 8400 square feet and the minimum lot width for interior lots is 70 feet and 95 feet for corner lots. The site is located in a resource management area under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Overlay District. Wetlands exist on site and the disturbance requires a U.S. Army Corps of Engineering permit. The stormwater management will be addressed per the Virginia Stormwater Regulations and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Regulations. The City’s LID ordinance will also have to be applied to the development of this project. The layout of the subdivision includes and ingress/egress on Lafayette Boulevard opposite the western intersection of Lee Drive and Lafayette Boulevard. This would provide a dedicated right turn lane into the site when traveling west on Lafayette. There will be a dedicated left turn lane from Lafayette Boulevard by turning the outermost through lane going up the hill into a left turn lane into the site. There will be three lanes 17958 Public Hearing 08/28/12 at the entrance of the subdivision to include: one entry lane, a dedicated right turn lane existing and a left through turn lane onto Lafayette Boulevard. In 2001, the City hired David Whyte of Kimely-Horn and Associates to review the transportation related to this project. The traffic evaluation provided a summary of existing; future background and future build traffic conditions along Lafayette Boulevard between Lee Drive and blue Gray Parkway. In addition, there will be a secondary entrance proposed on Alum Springs Road at the northern side of the parcel. This intersection will be designed to provide ingress and egress off of Alum Springs Road. Parking in the subdivision will only be allowed on one side of the street as agreed upon with the City provided that the curb to curb dimension roadway was 30 feet. Sidewalks will also be provided on both sides of the street. Staff requested that street trees be planted in the utility strip along both sides of the interior streets. Mr. Utt said the right-of-way for the future Lafayette Boulevard cross section shown in the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study will be provided along the development frontage. The area dedicated should match the dedication line shown along the rear portion of lots 44-46, and is shown for the remainder of Parcel B and a portion of Parcel 7, with a total right-of-way dedication of 4.323 acres along Lafayette Boulevard. The water and sanitary usage calculations have not been determined, but will be at the building plan review. The water and sanitary sewer service will be connected to existing City facilities. Mr. Utt stated that all submissions meet all applicable City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Guidelines and subdivision plat requirements and he recommended approval. 17959 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Public Works Director Fawcett stated that the City had employed David Whyte with Kimley-Horn to assist with the review of the transportation. Mr. Whyte appeared before the Planning Commission and presented the results of his evaluations as well as appearing before Council earlier this year with his traffic model. Mr. Whyte said he evaluated the traffic associated aspects of the proposed development. He said he looked at the size of the development and the access proposed by the developer and looking at its capacity and operations on Lafayette Boulevard as well as safety at the entrances on Lafayette and Alum Springs Road. He ran three scenarios for the traffic analysis and they were: existing conditions scenario based on existing counts, traffic control and signal timings. They estimated the traffic generated from the development would be based on the number of units which is 79 units. They found that all the study intersections operate acceptably. Its level of service grade would be a D. The grades go from A to F. D is consistent predictable operations. He included an increment of traffic to all intersection that is unassociated with any particular development it’s called background traffic growth. This number is generated based on historic traffic growth which is based on the study corridors which is 1% per year for two years. Mr. Whyte also added in the Cobblestone development traffic which was only partially occupied at the time of the original counts. He also added in site traffic associated with the development. In the mornings, he had added an additional 65 trips due to the 79 units of development and in the afternoon there was an additional 85 trips. The overall findings with the proposed road configuration of the operations were acceptable and there were no safety concerns noted. 17960 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Councilor Howe asked clarification on the traffic rating, the acceptable rating of the traffic and the projection of the traffic study. Mr. Whyte said it was a D rating and it was acceptable and the projection does not go past the year 2013. Councilor Kelly addressed the impact of this project on the Battlefield. He said the City spent two and a half years putting together a preservation plan, which was passed by Council. He asked if anything had been done on the protection of historic assets specifically the Battlefield in regards to this project. Mr. Fawcett addressed the Battlefield as it relates to the traffic impact. He said there was significant involvement by the National Park Service (NPS) in the discussions about the evaluation of the various locations of the main entrance. The input and opinion of the local NPS was sought and obtained through review of the various options and that was the nature of their involvement. Councilor Ellis asked if the streets were wide enough for vehicles to park on both sides of the street and allow room for emergency vehicles and whether the driveways were long enough to allow parking. Mr. Utt said the streets were not wide enough therefore parking would only be allowed on one side of the street and the driveways were long enough to allow parking. Councilor Paolucci disclosed that the company she works for represents the owners of 513, 519 and 521 Lafayette Boulevard which is a partnership with her brother- in-law and sister, but she has no financial interests in the partnership. She feels she can vote on and discuss this matter. Councilor Paolucci stated that she had done a lot of research on this development and attended many of the meetings regarding this property including the Planning Commission meetings. She said there had been a lot of discussion 17961 Public Hearing 08/28/12 on the Lafayette Corridor Study and whether it applies to this development. It was her understanding that it does not apply because the City had never adopted it as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but as she was researching she found that Council approved in August of 2011 the Lafayette Corridor Overlay District. She said the overlay district has design guidelines (Lafayette Boulevard Design Guidelines) and she wanted to know why the Planning Commission had never reviewed them to see if the development was compatible with the overlay district. Mr. Ocel stated that the design guidelines run from Prince Edward Street to the City-County line. It is broken up into different sections and this property is in the gateway section of the ordinance and it deals with site layout for buildings, signage, on-site landscaping, streetscape elements when a road has been widened, but in the case of a subdivision and the guidelines primarily address commercial development and he didn’t think any of the guidelines came into play with the subdivision. Councilor Paolucci asked if the subdivision sign would have to be approved according to the guidelines. Mr. Ocel said yes, once the subdivision is approved and a sign is proposed they would have to review the sign according to the guideline. Councilor Paolucci was under the impression that the entrance to the subdivision would be considered an improvement to Lafayette Boulevard therefore the design guidelines would be in effect. Mr. Ocel said he would need to look at the guidelines a little more closely to answer the question. She also cited that the Overlay District Section 78-902.1 which states that new development would require site development, layout, and design that will reduce traffic congestion and promote safer driving conditions. She wanted to know why the Planning Commission never addressed this and why they weren’t made aware of it. 17962 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Gary Knuckols, 725Jackson Street, Counsel for the applicant addressed the traffic. He said the traffic from the development does indicate that it will have normal impact on the Lafayette Boulevard traffic and would not have any changes to the overall level of service. He states that the subdivision is a by-right development and for a by- right development even if there were more significant traffic impacts the developer would not be legally required to do anything to ameliorate the impacts. He addressed the dedicated turn lane as traffic comes down the hill into the City. He said the City would not be giving up any right-of-way with connection to the turn lane. He said it would be a restriping of existing roadway. The City would acquire an additional right-of-way due to the right-of-way dedication that meets the legal requirements plus there will be an additional 7½ feet of right-of-way to meet the requirements of the deign study if the Lafayette Corridor is improved under the design study. Mr. Knuckols addressed the dedicated left turn lane. He suggests that if the restriping is not done to allow a dedicated left turn lane as you come down the hill there would be one lane for the traffic and if someone was attempting to making a left turn, traffic would be stopped until the car could make a safe turn. He suggested that would create a significant back up. He noted that the turn lane was a part of the application for approval and that it would not halt the project because it was not a critical part of the development just a safety issue. The entrance location was studied in other locations to include: further up the hill and further down the hill. The entrance further up the hill created site distance problems for traffic coming down the hill, cresting down the hill and for cars turning left out of the subdivision. The turn further down the hill near Blue-Grey Parkway caused conflicts with Alum Springs Road and the entrance to the Pen-Mar Floor Company and the 17963 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Pohanka Collision Center. It was determined that an entrance at this location would cause difficulty for traffic turning left from those two properties. Another issue that was identified is that this entrance may become signalized sometime in the future when the balance of the property is developed. This would cause problems if the entrance was closer to Blue and Gray and became signalized. The compromised that worked best for traffic safety and traffic movement was the proposed entrance. Mr. Knuckols also spoke on the process for approval of plats under current city ordinances preliminary plats and site plans are approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has approved the preliminary plat for the development and on July 25 it approved the site plan and recommended to Council that the final plat be approved. He said there have been three Planning Commission approvals of the project preliminary plat, site plan and final plat. Under the proposed Unified Development Ordinance the process will change and the preliminary plat will come to Council for approval once that’s approved the final plat approval will be administrative. He said because staff has approved and the plat has already had three approvals by the Planning Commission he doesn’t believe Council has the discretion to reject the plat because of traffic concerns or concerns regarding the entrance. He asked if it is rejected to be specific on why it’s not in compliance so that they can correct the deficiency. Councilor Devine asked if the development of Telegraph Hill would stand in the way of future improvements for Lafayette Boulevard as described in the Comprehensive Plan and the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study. Mr. Knuckols said the Comprehensive Plans call for four lanes and bike paths and the existing dedication without the additional 7½ feet and the existing dedication is 50 feet 17964 Public Hearing 08/28/12 from the center line and it would accomplish what the Comprehensive Plan calls for on Lafayette Boulevard. Councilor Kelly expressed his concern that although what was planned in the Comprehensive Plan might be able to go forward, making the area more pedestrian friendly, creating of a buffer zone to protect the Battlefield would not be able to happen under the current configuration as it was planned and approved by FAMPO and City Council. Russ Smith, Superintendent of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park (NPS), stated that the Comprehensive Plan says that the Fredericksburg- Spotsylvania Military Park has a major gateway on the east side of Lafayette Boulevard opposite the parcel and careful coordination with the NPS would be necessary when development plan are considered. He asked whether Lee Drive was still important historically and aesthetically and whether it was still an important part of the City gateway or was it just another road. He asked that the developers revisit the entrance further up the hill with a traffic light. Dr. Mike Stevens, President of Central Virginia Battlefield Trust, he spoke against the development because of the road being proposed directly across from Lee Drive. He stated that this was sacred ground and should not be subjected to the visual pollution in congestion and traffic that will come from this development. He asked that Council reject the proposal. Mark Combs, representative of the Civil War Trust, reiterated the concerns of Superintendent Smith and Dr. Stevens as well as the written concerns that were 17965 Public Hearing 08/28/12 submitted. He said he did not believe the proposed access road was sensitive to Lee Drive and it does not warrant approval. Hamilton Palmer, 401 Charles Street, stated that he had clients with property along Lafayette Boulevard and he was concerned about their access and their ability to maintain it throughout the development of Lafayette Boulevard. The Lafayette Boulevard Corridor study provides his client access to do that, but he said this project does not honor the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Overlay or the Lafayette Corridor Study which is adopted in part by the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Overlay. He suggested the developer go back to the table and work with the adjoining property owners to figure out the best entrance for all parties. He also stated that traffic consultant did not address or include the commercial traffic that is generated from 1319 and 1321 Lafayette Boulevard. He also suggested that the plats presented do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He said he would like to see the developer work with the NPS, land owners and the City and use the guidelines that the City has adopted to develop this property. Ordinance 12-20, First Read Approved, Permitting the Keeping of Chickens in the City Under Certain Circumstances by Amending City Code Chapter 14, “Animals,” Section 14-1, “Definitions,” and Section 14-184, “Keeping Fowl, Pigeons, or Bees,” and Adding a New Article IX, “Urban Agriculture” (D12-369 thru D12-370). – 6 speakers. City Attorney Dooley introduced her summer intern Dori Martin a third year law student from the University of Richmond Law School she studied local ordinances from other Virginia localities that have considered and adopted the chicken and bee issues. She also studied the ordinances nationally and researched public health concerns and noise concerns 17966 Public Hearing 08/28/12 related to urban bee and chicken keeping. She said Mr. John Howe with the Virginia Cooperative Extension was also present to address any questions. Ms. Dooley stated that Ms. Martin had identified best practices or keys to success in the communities that have adopted those ordinances. Those finding were included in the staff report and during a prior work session and they are the basis for the proposed ordinances. The chicken ordinance permits the keeping of hens only, the maximum number of chickens is 4, they must be fenced in at all times, the landowner must provide a secure, clean, and weather proof coop for the chickens, a minimum separation area of twenty-five feet from the nearest residential area, side yard by twenty feet and five to a rear lot line and it requires a permit in order to keep the chickens. City Attorney Dooley also addressed the keeping of bees which is defined as the European honeybees. There will be a maximum of two hives and the owner must have a fresh water source on site and there must be a flyaway barrier around the property to elevate the bee flight path. The bees must be separated ten feet from side yard and five feet from the rear lot lines. Councilor Solley noted that many of the jurisdictions who had adopted ordinances recommend distances between the enclosure and the nearest dwelling but the proposed ordinance is from lot line, why not use existing dwelling. Ms. Martin said one of the main considerations was ease of enforcing the restrictions in terms of measuring distance using a residence might require going on to a neighbor’s property and the measurements might not be as accurate. Councilor Solley asked if the Ms. Martin had done some checking to see if it would cause the elimination of any properties. Ms. Martin stated that 17967 Public Hearing 08/28/12 she used the GIS system and determined the twenty foot limit would prohibit some of the smaller lots, but majority of the lots would allow the chicken enclosures. Councilor Howe asked if any information was found from the 1944-1952 timeframe regarding chicken and why there was an increase from fifty feet to one hundred feet. Ms. Martin said she spent a couple days looking at old records but could not find out why or when that change was made. Councilor Kelly asked for clarification if there is a noise violation with the chicken clucking. Ms. Martin stated the existing noise ordinance and they have also built in the proposed ordinance that a permit can also be revoke do to violations. Ms. Dooley further explained that if there are three or more violations within a twelve month period the permit could be revoked. Councilor Paolucci asked what happens to the chickens once they stop laying eggs since there is a limit of four chickens. Ms. Martin stated that would be the responsibility of the owner to determine the best future. Councilor Devine thanked Ms. Martin for her research and she address the noise ordinance which says there has to be a sustained volume for fifteen minutes but the sound from a clucking chicken did not registered at that distance. She also thanked the efforts of the City Attorney staff and Mr. Howe for working on this and keeping it reasonable for families. Councilor Howe again stated that back in 1952 the distance was moved from fifty feet to one hundred and there was more space in the City at that time than there is today so he is concerned with the noise. He said the spacing from seventy-five feet to one hundred has validity. 17968 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Councilor Paolucci addressed Councilor Howe statement with the setback being changed. She asked if we knew how many chickens were being kept then compared to the limitation of the proposed four. Ms. Martin stated that the ordinance from the forties did not limit the number of chickens. She said she did see a trend of other agriculture, such as horses, being removed from the ordinance around the same time. Councilor Kelly asked for clarification on whether three calls about noise would be a cause for a permit to be revoked or would it have to be three complaints carried out. Ms. Dooley said the complaints would have to be carried out and Ms. Martin further clarified that it could be and three violations, not just noise, that can cause a permit to be revoked. Seth Casana, 1305 Princess Anne Street, Chair of the Fredericksburg Arts Commission (D12-370), applauded Council for bringing urban agriculture to Fredericksburg. He stated that the setback requirements favor bees over chickens. He said that in terms of total square footage of the City bees would have fewer buffer zones to avoid and would be smaller in size compared to those that the chickens face. He suggested offering zones of equal size. He also stated that because there was no front property line or public sidewalk setback requirements for chicken coops this would allow them to be placed at the front edge of a property adjacent to the sidewalk. He said because there was no occupied structure setback for bee hives they would also be allowed immediately adjacent to the primary structure of a property. He suggested that the buffer be equal to both side and backyard neighbors. He said he wanted to make sure owners were not unduly burdened by this activity. He urged adoption of the ordinance with his suggested changes. (See D12-370). 17969 Public Hearing 08/28/12 Rebecca Kurylo, 3103 Linden Avenue, spoke in favor of the ordinance she was one of the two that presented the petition of 700 plus signature in support of chickens and bees. She asked that all who were in attendance and supported the ordinance to stand and be recognized. Bethany Friezner, 1231 Hanover Street, she reminded Council of an issue that took place in June 2010 where a wild honey beehive in the city was removed from the University of Mary Washington. She said it housed approximately 40,000 bees and it had a huge impact on the bee community in the City. She said allowing beekeeping in the City would help to replenish the bees in the area. Roy McAfee, 607 Pitt Street, encouraged Council to consider measuring the distance from the residence and said the Wisconsin proposal has the measuring best. He said it would be easier to measure the distance from a house rather than a lot line because you can see a house, but you can’t see a lot line. Hamilton Palmer, 1500 Caroline Street, spoke in support of the bees. Kylie Beard, 1410 Charles Street, commented on the one hundred foot comment, she believed it was changed do to a change in society and that is what’s happening today. Today there is a change of attitude towards agriculture. Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Solley moved approval of Ordinance 12-20, on first read, permitting the keeping of chickens in the City under certain circumstances by amending City Code Chapter 14, “Animals,” Section 14-1, “Definitions,” and Section 14-184, “Keeping Fowl, Pigeons, or Bees,” and adding a new Article IX, “Urban Agriculture” with the addition that the City Attorney review comments regarding the measurements from lot line as compared to nearby dwelling; 17970 Public Hearing 08/28/12 motion was seconded by Councilor Devine and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (7). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (0). Ordinance 12-21, First Read Approved, Permitting the Keeping of Honeybees in the City Under Certain Circumstances by Amending City Code Chapter 14, “Animals,” Section 14-1, “Definitions,” and Section 14-184, “Keeping Fowl, Pigeons, or Bees,” and Adding a New Article IX, “Urban Agriculture” (D12-369). – this public hearing was combined with the chickens - 6 speakers see above. Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Paolucci moved approval of Ordinance 12-21, on first read, permitting the keeping of honeybees in the City under certain circumstances by amending City Code Chapter 14, “Animals,” Section 14-1, “Definitions,” and Section 14-184, “Keeping Fowl, Pigeons, or Bees,” and adding a new Article IX, “Urban Agriculture” with the addition that the City Attorney address comments regarding distances; motion was seconded by Councilor Devine and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (7). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (0). Resolution 12-70, First Read Approved, Amending the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget by Appropriating $4,786,000 in the Transit Fund for Capital for the Maintenance Facility Project (D12-371 thru D12-372). – No speakers. Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Paolucci moved approval of Resolution 12-70, on first read, amending the fiscal year 2012 budget by appropriating 17971 Public Hearing 08/28/12 $4,786,000 in the Transit Fund for capital for the maintenance facility project; motion was seconded by Councilor Solley and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (7). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (0). Adjournment. There being no speakers to come before the Council at this time, Mayor Greenlaw declared the hearing officially adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Mary Katherine Greenlaw Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Mayor Tonya B. Lacey Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council, CMC 17972 Regular Session 08/28/12 HON. MARY KATHERINE GREENLAW, MAYOR CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA HON. BRADFORD C. ELLIS, VICE -MAYOR, WARD ONE CITY COUNCIL HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, AT-LARGE HON. MATTHEW J. KELLY, AT-LARGE HON. GEORGE C. SOLLEY, WARD TWO HON. FREDERIC N. HOWE, III, WARD THREE HON. BEATRICE R. PAOLUCCI, WARD FOUR Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 August 28, 2012 The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, held a regular session on Tuesday, August 28, 2012, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. City Council Present. Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw presiding. Vice- Mayor Bradford C. Ellis. Councilors Kerry P. Devine, Frederic N. Howe, III, Matthew J. Kelly, Beatrice R. Paolucci and George C. Solley. Also Present. City Manager Beverly R. Cameron, Assistant City Manager Mark Whitley, City Attorney Kathleen Dooley, Information Technology Director Suzanne Goodman, GIS Technician Kim Williams, Planning Director Ray Ocel, Building & Development Services Director Steve Smallwood, Site Development Manager Kevin Utt, Director of Transit Kathy Beck, Assistant Director of Transit Wendy Kimball, Deputy Fire Chief Mike Jones, Public Works Director Doug Fawcett and Clerk of Council Tonya B. Lacey. Opening Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance. Council was led in prayer by Vice-Mayor Bradford C. Ellis followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw. Auxiliary Officer Recognized. Mayor Greenlaw recognized the presence of Officer John Fesq at this evening’s meeting. 17973 Regular Session 08/28/12 Transition from Tax Map ID to Geographic Parcel Identification Number (GPIN) (D12-363 thru D12-364). Mr. Jamie Christensen of WorldView Solutions, Inc. gave a PowerPoint presentation on GPIN transition. He began by explaining what a GPIN is, which is a unique number based on the center of the parcels and it also includes condos. He discussed the advantages of a GPIN which are: they provide a standard format for parcel numbers, you can use a map to find the parcel location, it has automated maintenance with the GIS, it can be reproduced outside the GIS and it’s a standard in other localities. Mr. Christensen explained the transition plan as well. (See D12-363thru D12-364) Citizen Comment. The followings speakers came forward to participate in the citizen comment portion of this evening's meeting. Bonnie Delaylis, 711 Caroline Street, Richard Johnston Inn, presented Council with her Christmas wish list. She asked that the two hour parking be expanded to four hours from Thanksgiving Day to New Years Day. She asked that the empty storefronts be occupied or the windows decorated for the holidays. Finally, she asked that lights be placed on the tree trunks or limbs this year. She also gave a summary of events that would be occurring during the holidays: Holiday open house will begin November 10 and 11, she suggested that all merchants offer military families discounts during this weekend. She reminded Council of the tree lighting ceremony on November 3. Kim Fraser, 10617 Piney Branch Road, Came in support of “Beekeeping in the Burg.” She is the founder of the Rappahannock Area Beekeepers Association. She was the first President of the Association and she has been a beekeeper for 10 years. She also teaches beginner beekeeping, a class that is offered through the Spotsylvania County 17974 Regular Session 08/28/12 Extension Agents office. She stated how important it is to have bees to pollinate plants. Lt. Col. David James, 213 Princess Anne Street, past President and President Elect of the Fredericksburg Guard Association (D12-365), gave a summary on the history of the cannon and he asked Council to support Councilor Kelly’s request, to allow him to draft an agreement between the Fredericksburg Guard Association and the City to allow the restoration of the cannon by a fund raiser put on by the Guard Association. This agreement would allow the cannon to be placed on display at the armory under a permanent loan agreement from the City, provided the Fredericksburg Guard Association maintain the cannon and it remains within the City limits. (See D12-365). Public Hearings Conducted. The regular session was recessed in order to conduct the scheduled public hearing and immediately reconvened upon their conclusion. Council Agenda Presented. The following item was presented to Council. 7A. Urban Crescent Mayors and Chairs Letter Regarding Transportation Funding in Virginia – Mayor Greenlaw 7B. Cannon Restoration – Councilor Kelly Urban Crescent Mayors and Chairs Letter Regarding Transportation Funding in Virginia (D12-373). Mayor Greenlaw informed Council that she would be signing the letter along with several other leaders from the Urban Crescent Area which comprises areas from Alexandria to Norfolk. The letter is addressing transportation funding in Virginia and it will be sent to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Majority and Minority Leader and ultimately the General Assembly. Cannon Restoration (D12-374). Councilor Kelly asked Council for their 17975 Regular Session 08/28/12 support to allow him and staff to enter into discussions with representatives of the National Guard Association to set out the conditions for the restoration of the gun and placement of the gun. The conditions would be brought back to Council for final approval. Council was in support. City Manager’s Consent Agenda Accepted for Transmittal as Recommended (D12-375 thru D12-381). Following review and as recommended, Councilor Kelly moved approval of the City Manager's consent agenda; motion was seconded by Councilor Solley and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (6). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly and Solley. Nays (0). Councilor Paolucci stepped out for a moment. • Resolution 12-71, Adoption of the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (D12-375). • Transmittal of Boards and Commission Minutes o Architectural Review Board – July 9, 2012 (D12-376). o Architectural Review Board – July 23, 2012 (D12-377). o Economic Development Authority – July 9, 2012 (D12-378). o Fredericksburg Arts Commission – July 12, 2012 (D12-378.1). o Memorials Commission – April 18, 2012 (D12-378.2). o Planning Commission – July 25, 2012 (D12-379). o Recreation Commission – May 17, 2012 (D12-380). o Recreation Commission – June 21, 2012 (D12-381). Adoption of Minutes (D12-382). Councilor Kelly moved approval of the Work Session minutes for July 10, 2012, Public Hearing minutes for August 14, 2012 17976 Regular Session 08/28/12 and Regular Session minutes for August 14, 2012; motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Ellis and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (6). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly and Solley. Nays (0). Councilor Paolucci stepped out for a moment. Resolution 12-72, Approved, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consent Order with the Virginia Waste Management Board – Cool Springs Road Landfill (D12-383). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Devine moved approval of Resolution 12-72, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consent Order with the Virginia Waste Management Board – Cool Springs Road Landfill; motion was seconded by Councilor Paolucci and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (7). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (0). Resolution 12-73, Approved, Recommending the Appointment of Certain Persons by the Circuit Court to the Board of Equalization and Setting the Compensation of Board Members (D12-384). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Paolucci moved approval of Resolution 12-73, recommending the appointment of certain persons by the Circuit Court to the Board of Equalization and setting the compensation of board members; the motion was seconded by Councilor Devine and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (7). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (0). Ordinance 12-22, First Read Approved, Continuing Conditions for Permitting Campaign Signs in the Public Right-of-Way and 17977 Regular Session 08/28/12 Prohibiting Such Signs on Other City Property, by Amending City Code Chapter 66 “Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places,” Article I “In General,” by the Addition of Section 66-10.1 “Campaign Signs on Public Property” (D12-385). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Kelly moved approval of Ordinance 12-22, on first read, continuing conditions for permitting campaign signs in the public right-of-way and prohibiting such signs on other city property, by amending City Code Chapter 66 “Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places,” Article I “In General,” by the addition of Section 66-10.1 “Campaign Signs on Public Property”; the motion was seconded by Councilor Paolucci. Councilor Solley asked why the City would codify this ordinance and the reason for allowing signs in the public rights-of-way. Public Works Director Fawcett said this would give the City some measure of control over what could be a chaotic situation. Councilor Solley also stated that he thought a 32 square foot sign would be too large in a public right-of-way and he wanted to know what would happen if it were put in the median. Mr. Fawcett said the City would call the campaign and ask them to remove it and if it’s not moved, staff would remove it. Councilor Devine also expressed some concern with adopting a permanent ordinance. She felt having signs in a public right-of-way for 60 day was a long time. She said the signs can become obstructive and distracting. The motion passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (5). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Howe, Kelly and Paolucci. Nays (2) Councilor Devine and Solley. Resolution 12-74, Approved, Contract Award for Management of 17978 Regular Session 08/28/12 United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield Assessment Grant (D12-386). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Devine moved approval of Resolution 12-74, approving the Contract Award for Management of United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield Assessment Grant; the motion was seconded by Councilor Howe and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (7). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (0). City Manager’s Report and Council Calendar (D12-387 thru D12- 388). City Manager Cameron asked if there were any questions regarding the Manager’s report or the Council Calendar. Activities highlighted on the report were as follows: Community-Based Eligibility Worker Program, W.L. Harris Park, Gordon Cemetery, Public Facilities Energy Retrofit, Courthouse Project Update, and Department of Social Services to Host Child-Parent Attachment Course. City Manager Cameron reminded Council of the Special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 18, at 7:30 in addition to the September 11 meeting. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, Mayor Greenlaw declared the meeting officially adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Mary Katherine Greenlaw Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Mayor Tonya B. Lacey Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council, CMC 17979 Regular Session 08/28/12 [This page intentionally left blank.] 17980