City Council

Regular Session 09/18/12 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 September 18, 2012 The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, held a special session on Tuesday, September 18, 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, Planning Director Ray Ocel, Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities Director Robert Antozzi, Public Works Director Doug Fawcett, Site Development Manager Kevin Utt 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 Sergeant Paul Peterson at this evening’s meeting. Citizen Comment. The followings speakers came forward to participate in the citizen comment portion of this evening's meeting. 18009 Regular Session 09/18/12 Howard Piggee, 1709 Raines Drive, spoke on the Telegraph Hill Development. He said he was troubled with the lack of concern for the citizens and he objects to any egress that will cause traffic problems. He also spoke in regards to the parking for the courthouse stating that he is not sure why a variance is needed when there is a parking garage. He assumed it was because the garage was full. Latina James, 1316 Kenmore Avenue, requested that Council approve parking meters for cabs. She said she believes the cab companies need structure and meters would assist in fair pricing. She stated that she was charged two different prices when going to and coming from the same place. Janice Ringold, 1 Hooker Lane, had concerns with the intersection at Lee Drive due to the development of Telegraph Hill. She said there is already heavy traffic in the area and she feels if the passing lane is taken away this would cause more problems because motorist would not be able to pass slow moving trucks that travel Lafayette Boulevard. She expressed her concern that if the lane is turned into a left turn lane people may use it to pass. She was also concerned that this would not allow the widening of Lafayette Boulevard when the time comes. Council Agenda Presented. The following item was presented to Council. 7A. Review of Cab Fares – Councilor Howe Review of Cab Fares. Councilor Howe asked City Attorney Dooley for clarification on the cab fares. City Attorney Dooley explained that the code contains regulations for the cab fare and the fare changes as you enter different zones. She said for a number of years cab operators asked to move from zones to meters, but there was a fear that the meters would cost more to the customers. Ms. Dooley said there was 18010 Regular Session 09/18/12 widespread opposition to the meter proposal and the proposal died. She suggested the citizen speak with the Police Department to file a complaint because they monitor the cab companies. Ordinance 12-23, Second Read Approved, Amending the Official Zoning Map to Change the Designation of the Following Properties from C-T Commercial Transitional and R-8 Residential to C-D Commercial Downtown: 403 Sophia Street, 401 Sophia Street, 401 Princess Anne Street, 411 Princess Anne Street, 400 Princess Anne Street, 404 Princess Anne Street, 406 Princess Anne Street, Tax Map #60-P5 (No Address), 405 Charles Street, 401 Charles Street, 306-312 Frederick Street, 311-313 Charles Street, 309 Charles Street, 307 Charles Street 318 Charles Street, and 316 Charles Street (D12-415). Councilor Paolucci recused herself from discussions and vote because of an immediate family member owns property at 401 & 403 Charles Street (the Purina Tower). Upon a motion and as recommended Vice-Mayor Ellis moved approval of Ordinance 12-23, on second read, amending the official zoning map to change the designation of the following properties from (C-T) Commercial Transitional and (R-8) Residential to (C-D) Commercial Downtown: 403 Sophia Street, 401 Sophia Street, 401 Princess Anne Street, 411 Princess Anne Street, 400 Princess Anne Street, 404 Princess Anne Street, 406 Princess Anne Street, Tax Map #60-P5 (no address), 405 Charles Street, 401 Charles Street, 306-312 Frederick Street, 311-313 Charles Street, 309 Charles Street, 307 Charles Street 318 Charles Street, and 316 Charles Street; motion was seconded by 18011 Regular Session 09/18/12 Councilor Solley and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (6). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly and Solley. Nays (0). Ordinance 12-24, Second Read Approved, Expanding the Downtown Parking District, by Amending City Code Chapter 78, “Zoning, Planning and Development, Article III, “Zoning,” Section 78- 118 (D12-416). – 2 speakers. Councilor Paolucci recused herself from discussions and vote because of an immediate family member owns property at 401 & 403 Charles Street (the Purina Tower). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Solley moved approval of Ordinance 12-24, on second read, expanding the downtown parking district, by amending City Code Chapter 78, “Zoning, Planning and Development, Article III, “Zoning,” Section 78-118; motion was seconded by Councilor Devine and passed by the following unanimously recorded votes. Ayes (6). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly and Solley. Nays (0). Ordinance 12-25, Second Read Approved, Amending the Boundaries of the Railroad Station Overlay Zoning District to Include 306-312 Frederick Street, 316 Charles Street, and 318 Charles Street, 307-309 Charles Street, 311 Charles Street, 313 Charles Street and to Exclude 3 Parcels Owned by the City of Fredericksburg, Reducing the Maximum Height by Right to 40 Feet, and Deleting a Requirement for a Special Use Permit for New Curb Cuts, by Amending the Official Zoning Map and City Code Chapter 78, “Zoning, Planning and 18012 Regular Session 09/18/12 Development.” Article III, Zoning,” Sections 78-790, 78-793, and 78-795 (D12-417 thru D12-418). Councilor Paolucci recused herself from discussions and vote because of an immediate family member owns property at 401 & 403 Charles Street (the Purina Tower). Councilor Kelly stated that in the past measuring for a residential property was measured from the flood line as opposed to the grade. He asked if that had been changed. Mr. Ocel said the definition of how the height is measured has changed and the language says the height measured in a floodplain is measured from the grade as opposed to the base flood elevation. Councilor Kelly stated that he had not bought into JumpStart! as much as most. Looking for longer economic viability he feels that the City needed to look at what makes it unique to the region and he felt that was the historic downtown and the historic assets in the City. He said when you take away from the historic character you cannot get that back. He said he would error on the side of caution when making changes to the historic district. He understood the rational to move from CD to CT zoning. He asked if the FAR could be lowered in the historic district. Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Devine moved approval of Ordinance 12-25, on second read, amending the boundaries of the Railroad Station Overlay Zoning District to include 306-312 Frederick Street, 316 Charles Street, and 318 Charles Street, 307-309 Charles Street, 311 Charles Street, 313 Charles Street and to exclude 3 parcels owned by the City of Fredericksburg, reducing the maximum height by right to 40 feet, and deleting a requirement for a special use permit for new curb cuts, by amending the official Zoning Map and City Code Chapter 78, “Zoning, Planning and 18013 Regular Session 09/18/12 Development.” Article III, Zoning,” Sections 78-790, 78-793, and 78-795; motion was seconded by Councilor Solley and passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (5). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, and Solley. Nays (1) Kelly. Resolution 12-80, Failed, 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 (D12-419). Planning Director Ocel gave a brief update in regards to the subdivision and the Lafayette Boulevard Gateway Corridor Overlay Guidelines. The plat was reviewed with the guidelines in mind. The property for Telegraph Hill was within the Gateway District. He said the information he looked at going through the review was vehicular access streetscape character, streetscape elements, building and design elements as noted in the guidelines and how the houses would be oriented in the neighborhood. This portion of the guidelines is met by the design of the plat and he said the houses would be facing inward into the subdivision. He also noted that residential houses should have a 20 foot setback or more from Lafayette Boulevard and houses adjacent to Lafayette Boulevard would have a minimum front setback of 30 feet. This meets the guidelines as well. The guidelines state that vehicular access must be managed and driveways on each side of the street should align with one another and that has been done. Mr. Ocel recommended approval. Councilor Paolucci asked Mr. Ocel if he had reviewed the site plan, and the final plat in conjunction with the Lafayette Boulevard Overlay District and Mr. Ocel said he did. She asked how it complied with the City Code Section 78-902.1 which says site 18014 Regular Session 09/18/12 development layout and design should reduce traffic congestion and promote safer driving conditions. Mr. Ocel said it would because of where the road was going to come out and intersect with Lafayette Boulevard. This was the reason for having so much discussion on the traffic and for getting the traffic engineer to help find the best location for the access of the road, and this will promote the safest driving conditions when coming from the subdivision road. She asked how removing the one lane and making it a left turn lane would promote a safer driving condition. The traffic engineer also stated that it would be safer to have that lane turned into a left turn lane as opposed to having one lane going down the hill and someone trying to turn left and backing traffic up the hill. Mr. Fawcett said that was the conclusion from the traffic engineer. He said the benefit of having that lane was greater than retaining the second traffic lane going southbound for those reasons. Councilor Paolucci followed up by asking if it were better to back up traffic going up the hill than it was coming down the hill. Mr. Fawcett explained that it would be safer to have the turn lane than to have the lanes merging going southbound from two lanes back to one then back to two and back to one lane all in a matter of a few hundred feet. He felt that promoted more confusion. Vice-Mayor Ellis asked, in staff’s opinion, if the current proposal reduced traffic congestion and promoted safer driving conditions. Mr. Ocel said the plan as proposed with the proposed access point on Lafayette Boulevard in his opinion does promote safer driving conditions. He also said he didn’t think the code was meant to be interpreted that traffic should be reduced without adding some vehicle because that would mean there could never be any development accessing onto Lafayette Boulevard. Councilor Howe asked what the liability for the traffic engineer to the City was if 18015 Regular Session 09/18/12 the study turned out to be different than they predicted. Mr. Ocel did not have an answer to that question, but Vice-Mayor Ellis stated that he would argue that the City would be responsible because they accepted the report. Councilor Howe asked again what the City’s recourse was if the consultant and the traffic study turned out to be wrong? He said there should be some sort of contract to allow some recourse. Mr. Fawcett stated that all consultants are required to use industry standards for their assumptions and for developing their data and conclusions. He said if the conclusions were inaccurate he would disagree that there would be liability, but he would suggest that the liability would be in allegations or in proof that they violated industry standards in preparing the data. A few of the industry standards for this study was based on current traffic counts, current turning movements and current thru movements, reasonable projections of the traffic volume increase over the period of the study and that’s based on historical data and future for development. He said if they violated any of their industry standards there would be some liability. Vice-Mayor Ellis asked how many years are used in the industry standards when making traffic projections. Mr. Fawcett said there are no set number of years used in the standards to his knowledge. Councilor Solley moved to approve Resolution 12-80, 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; motion was seconded by Councilor Devine. Councilor Kelly said there was a joint study done involving all stakeholders and 18016 Regular Session 09/18/12 there were concerns with the Battlefield property. He said a lot of effort went into the design of the corridor around the Battlefield to make sure it didn’t block traffic to the Battlefield. He said there were overlay studies, corridor studies and City Council has approved them and this is what is expected of Lafayette Boulevard. He said the current proposed roads do not support any of the plans that Council has approved. He suggested continuing work with the developer to find the best long term solution. City Attorney Dooley reminded Council of the process stating that in Virginia all localities are required to have a subdivision ordinance and no land can be subdivided unless it complies with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. In Fredericksburg, for all subdivisions there is a permitted process for a preliminary plat and a final plat. Under the City’s ordinance the Planning Commission is responsible for approving preliminary plats and final plat and plans go before City Council for final approval. A subdivision approval is administratively approved. If the plat meets the requirements it is approved and if it does not it shall not be approved. She stated that if Council disapproved a plat they must do so with specific reference to the terms of the subdivision ordinance, it must identify the deficiency in the plat and it must direct the landowner on how to correct the plat to correct the deficiency after which the plat would be approved. Mayor Greenlaw noted that it was unique to have the plats come before Council for approval because in most localities they are approved administratively. Vice-Mayor Ellis stated that the Unified Development Ordinance would address those changes. He stated that due to Code 78-902.1 he did not feel the proposal reduced traffic congestion or promoted safer driving condition, or encourage pedestrian or bicycle amenities and for these reasons he could not support. 18017 Regular Session 09/18/12 Councilor Solley stated that he felt Council had a legal obligation because the applicant met all the requirements and the law was clear. He did agree with Mr. Kelly that Lafayette needed to be addressed, but he didn’t agree with the affect on the Battlefield. Mayor Greenlaw concurred with Councilor Solley. Councilor Devine also agreed and stated that this is not the first time Council has looked at the proposal. She stated that the applicant reduced the number of units since the first proposal. She said the concerns regarding traffic had been addressed as much as they could be in the redesign. The motion failed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (3). Councilors Greenlaw, Devine, and Solley. Nays (4) Councilors Ellis, Howe, Kelly and Paolucci. City Attorney Dooley explained that due to the failed approval Council must be specific on how they can be amended for approval. Councilor Howe moved to disapprove the plat due to the Rampart and Lafayette Roadway portion of the plan as being unacceptable as public use short of the ingress egress of Lafayette Boulevard. There being no second Councilor Howe withdrew his motion. Resolution 12-81, Passed, Disapproving the Final Subdivision Plat and Plan for the Proposed Subdivision of Tax Map A15-1-P6, GPIN #7778-69-0581, Consisting of 28.887 Acres, for “Telegraph Hill,”. Councilor Kelly moved to approve Resolution 12-81, Disapproving the Final Subdivision Plat and Plan for the Proposed Subdivision of Tax Map A15-1-P6, GPIN #7778-69-0581, Consisting of 28.887 Acres, for “Telegraph Hill,” reading into record the following: 18018 Regular Session 09/18/12 WHEREAS, Fredericksburg Park, LLC. has applied for the approval of a final subdivision plat and plan for the proposed subdivision of Tax Map A15-1-P6, GPIN#7778-69-0581, consisting of 28.887 acres, and Tax Map Parcel A15-1-P7, GPIN #7778-69-7829, consisting of 9.8342 acres, located on Lafayette Boulevard, south of the Blue Gray Parkway, in Fredericksburg, Virginia. WHEREAS, the City Council after notice and hearing thereon, has considered the conformity of the plat with the duly adopted ordinances, resolutions, and policies of the City. WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision of land provides for a 50 foot and variable width right-of-way named “Rampart Drive” which intersects Lafayette Boulevard directly across from the Lee Drive entrance to the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. WHEREAS, the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2007) calls for the widening of Lafayette Boulevard to 4 lanes with bike paths south of the Blue Gray Parkway, in the area of the proposed subdivision and Rampart Drive entrance. WHEREAS, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization prepared the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study, the findings, vision and improvement concepts of which were endorsed by the City Council by adoption of Resolution 09-111 on October 27, 2009. WHEREAS, the “Battlefield” segment of the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor received extensive treatment in the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study, which generated a recommended concept for the area of the Lee Drive/Lafayette Boulevard intersection under the heading, “Lee Drive Area,” illustrated in Figures 4.4D, 4.4E, 4.4F, 18019 Regular Session 09/18/12 4.4G, 4.4H, 4.4I, 4.4J, 4.4K, and 4.4L on pages 44-49 of the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study. WHEREAS, the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study recommended concept shows the Lafayette Road access for “Telegraph Hill” to be located south of the Lee Drive intersection, not aligned with it. WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2223, the comprehensive plan shall designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature, including any road improvement and any transportation improvement shown on the plan, and shall indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be. WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2232, the legal status of the Comprehensive Plan is such that, unless a feature is already shown on the adopted master plan or part thereof or is deemed so, no street or connection to an existing street shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until its general location or approximate location, character and extent is approved as being substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-2241 the Subdivision Ordinance is required to assure the orderly subdivision of land and its development, and to provide for the coordination of streets within and contiguous to the subdivision with other existing or planned streets within the general area as to location, widths, grades and drainage. WHEREAS, Fredericksburg City Code §78-1227 states that final plats and plans for subdivisions are required to assist the city council in ensuring the orderly 18020 Regular Session 09/18/12 development of subdivisions in harmony with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the subdivision ordinance. WHEREAS, Fredericksburg City Code §78-1231 requires that a final plat shall include sufficient information to show how the physical improvements associated with the proposed subdivision are compatible with existing or proposed development of record on adjacent properties, which may include schematic plans for future transportation improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, after considering the Comprehensive Plan (2007), the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study, the proposed final plat, the comments of City staff, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the public comments on the plat and the record as a whole, hereby determines that the plat and plan are deficient in that the location of the intersection of the proposed “Rampart Road” is not compatible with the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2007), and the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this deficiency relates to the plat’s and plan’s nonconformity with City Code §§78-1227 and 78-1231(13). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the modification or correction that will permit approval of the plat and plan is the relocation of “Rampart Drive” to a location compatible with the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2007) and the 2009 Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Study. The motion was seconded by Councilor Howe and passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (4). Councilors Ellis, Howe, Kelly and Paolucci. Nays (1) 18021 Regular Session 09/18/12 Greenlaw, Devine, and Solley. Assigning General Fund Balance for a Variety of Purposes (D12- 420). City Manager Cameron stated that this was a plan to assign fund balances to future Capital Project in response to concerns expressed by members of Council. He offered the plan to formalize the City’s financial commitment for certain projects specifically, the Renwick Renovations, Downtown Parking Infrastructure and school capital needs. Assigning these fund balances means the City’s governing body has declared its intent to use a portion of its reserves in a certain way. The assignment of fund balance are recognized on the City’s fund balance sheet and displayed in the annual audit and the funds can only be used for those purposes specified. The resolution sets aside $1 million for Renwick renovations, $1.7 million for parking and $1.2 million for school capital. Councilor Ellis asked if the project were listed in order of priority and Mr. Cameron said they were not. Councilor Kelly stated that he thought it was the majority’s view to take the renovations off the table for the General District Court (GDC) and use those funds for Renwick and parking. He said he was not committed to spending fund balances on the courthouse. Councilor Howe referred to the courthouse project as “project creep”. He said there are many other projects the money could be used on. He did however agree with using the money on the schools and he said that should be a priority. Vice-Mayor Ellis recommended tabling this item until after the retreat. Councilor Devine expressed her frustration and confusion because at the last 18022 Regular Session 09/18/12 meeting there were Council members insisting that funding be committed to these projects and now that staff has done that council seemed to be back tracking. Councilor Paolucci clarified that the City Attorney had agreed to put a motion before Council to assure that the issues would be addressed therefore staff presented the proposed resolution. She said she did not feel like it was “project creep”. She thanked staff for the two resolutions for discussion, but she was not in favor of adding more funds for the parking issues and to address Renwick. She stated that council needed to address the issue of whether to do the renovations at GDC before deciding on the funding. She said she did not see this as adding additional funds and she was ready to vote on it. Councilor Solley pointed out that the money from the GDC renovation would not be sufficient enough to cover all the costs of the Renwick project and parking. Vice-Mayor Ellis disagreed that Council requested money for the projects. He said what was requested was a standalone resolution to identify the key priority issues. He said leading up to the discussion there was a majority that said the $4.8 million from the GDC renovations could be applied to Renwick and the parking solutions. Councilor Kelly made a motion to table the resolution; the motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Ellis and passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (6). Councilors Ellis, Devine, Howe, Kelly, Paolucci, and Solley. Nays (1) Mayor Greenlaw. Resolution 12-82, Approved, Identifying Priority Issues for City Council Consideration, in Light of the Progress of the New Courts Facility Project (D12-421). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Solley moved to approve Resolution 12-82, identifying priority issues for City Council consideration, in light of the progress of the new courts facility project with the deletion 18023 Regular Session 09/18/12 of item 4 - 4. By separate resolution of even date, assigns certain fund balance for the Renwick and downtown parking priorities in order to set aside funds for future project implementation.; the motion was seconded by Councilor Paolucci. Councilor Kelly state that he would be voting against this because the action separates Renwick and the parking from the courts and the parking was supposed to be a part of the original project. Councilor Ellis disagreed he said it was not separating the issues out he said this was a way to demonstrate commitment to Renwick and the parking. The motion passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (6). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Howe, Paolucci, and Solley. Nays (1) Councilor Kelly. Courthouse Project (D12-422 thru D12-423). Councilor Paolucci asked when the City knew it would need all the Special Use Permits and Special Exceptions. Mr. Ocel explained that as the different teams were developing their proposals they would call to ask what applications would be needed. Councilor Paolucci asked if it was known that special exceptions and special use permits were going to be needed when the previous Council approved the courts at this location. Mr. Ocel said he believed so, but would not speak on their behalf. City Attorney Dooley stated that the establishment of a courthouse under the current zoning district requires a special use permit and she said it was known when Council approved the PPEA agreement on November 8, 2001 that the project would need zoning approval. Councilor Paolucci asked if it was known in 2011 that these approvals were needed, then why were they just brought before Council? City Manager Cameron explained that the items could not be brought to Council until they had Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval and those approvals occurred between 18024 Regular Session 09/18/12 February and May. Following those approvals they were considered by the Planning Commission. Councilor Paolucci agreed and noted that the final Planning Commission approval was August 8 and she felt these permits could have been addressed at three previous meetings. She said she felt that Council’s back was up against the wall and if they delayed approval there would be ramification. Councilor Howe said Council’s backs are up against the wall because of the PPEA process. He said with normal processes these items would have been taken care of before construction began. He asked if the design-built team were required to build to the City’s standards and zoning? City Attorney said the zoning regulations downtown had not changed between November 2011 and now and the project is not materially different. She said it has had to work its way through the process and there were some design refinements through the ARB process, but the project and zoning regulations are the same as they were in November 2011. The zoning issues were identified then and as she stated before, building a courthouse in the downtown requires a special use permit and everything has always been contingent upon Council’s zoning approval of the final design. Councilor Howe asked if the design-build team were required to abide by the City’s requirements for the building and structure so that they did not have to receive special exceptions for the project. City Attorney Dooley said the City Council awarded the contract for the construction of the project as it was proposed by First-Choice and they always knew that the zoning approval would be needed. Councilor Howe said any other developer must go through the design process first and building could not start until that was in place. He felt that if Council approved all the special use permit and special 18025 Regular Session 09/18/12 exceptions the same must be done for the next applicant. Ms. Dooley said the special use permit to build a courthouse only applies to the City. The special exceptions are a flexibility provided by the City to any land owner or land developer. In these cases the project must be special or extraordinary or unusual. It’s a tool used to provide flexibility in the zoning ordinance for special or unusual projects. The courts are considered special or extraordinary because the City is the only person who would be able to build a courthouse and it has special requirements that come with it. Councilor Solley stated that the City was not trying to avoid its own laws. He said the City allows the granting of special use permits and special exceptions and the City was going through the legal process to have them granted. He did not agree with the comments that if the special use permits and special exceptions were granted for the City it would have to be granted for the next applicant. He said each application stands on its own merits. He commented on the objections to the process, he said the City has gone through the due process and procedure for the court project. He said he now feel likes the staff is being criticized for going through the process. He said it was obvious that there are those that will stall the project no matter what. The special use permits and special exception were no surprise and could have been addressed with staff at any time since November 2011. Councilor Paolucci said she was not questioning the due process. She said everyone knew the special use permits and the special exceptions needed to be approved, her concern was that they were first submitted to Council at the September 11 meeting and at that time Council was informed that the builder wanted to break ground on October 1 and her concern was that this only allowed the Council the current meeting and 18026 Regular Session 09/18/12 the next to approve. She said there would be no time to discuss problems. Councilor Paolucci said she was against the original courthouse project because she felt that a consolidated courthouse was needed. She explained that Renwick and parking had always been a priority for her. She said she has tried to address the parking with the old Council and the new Council to no avail. She said it’s not her intent to vote the project down or hold up the project she just wanted her issues and concerns addressed because the parking was in her Ward and she has to answer the questions from her constituents. Councilor Kelly said he agreed with Councilor Solley and City Attorney Dooley as it relates to the special use permits and special exceptions, but he asked if this project rose to the occasion. He also question whether a project like this would be brought forward if it were a private developer. He said these issue should have been discussed with the community first as it was done with the parking garage and the hotel. He said that the City was violating its own rules and regulations on the issue that all the approval should have been decided on before the project was started. Councilor Solley clarified with Councilor Paolucci that his earlier comments were being addressed to Councilors Howe and Kelly. He said he understood all of Councilor Paolucci’s concerns with Renwick and parking. He said they have tried to convince everyone that those items are important to everyone. He feels the disagreement has been whether the timing and processes were appropriate following the decisions on the court. He said he fully intends to address the parking and Renwick issues, and is staff as they have shown this by presented the resolution for fund proposal. Vice-Mayor Ellis said in review of his original vote on courts and looking at other more pressing needs in the city such as schools and paying employees well he finds it 18027 Regular Session 09/18/12 difficult to support the proposed special use and special exception permits. He said he does not plan to derail the project, but he still has outstanding questions on the operational cost over five years. He said until he knows those cost he could not vote in support. Councilor Howe said he had come to Council when he first came on Council with a proposal that addressed courts based on the initiatives given to him by Council to include a consolidated courthouse, parking, 100-year fix and a promise from then Mayor for a resolution to Renwick, but none of those things were achieved therefore he voted the project down. He said this project was approved without parking now the City wants a special exception, he said this would not be allowed for anyone else. He said that was the reason for his original proposal that he presented to the City using City assets that had already been paid for by the citizens. Councilor Howe felt the City was spending $35 million on the courts and also looking to spend additional money to address those issues that should have been addressed in the original proposal. He feels as though all the priorities were left out so that the courts project could move forward. Councilor Devine stated that she understood all the issues and why people were opposed to the project. It was a long public debated process and seven years ago the Council wanted a consolidated courthouse but moved away from it because it was not fiscally responsible. She said she believed this project served the City’s needs. Councilor Devine said when you are going through the PPEA process for a project such as the courts it cannot be compared with other projects like the hotel. There are different processes for each of those projects. She said everyone knew there would be special use permits and special exceptions required and she said nothing came to the Council last 18028 Regular Session 09/18/12 minute and she could not understand why some pretend they didn’t know these items were coming before Council. Councilor Solley said as the City Council voted to proceed with this process, and based on that vote, the City borrowed money, entered into a contract, and took other actions needed based on that decision. He said with all that in mind the City Manager provided a memorandum regarding the financial ramification of stopping the project. City Manager Cameron explained the financial implications if the project was suspended. He said if the permits were not approved that would he suspend the contract or terminate the contract. He first explained the bonds that were issued in December 2011, in the amount of $35 million, were issued to finance the courts project. The term of the bond is 25 years and they can be called after 10 years. He said whether the courts are built or not the debt service must be paid until the bonds are called. The City entered into Comprehensive Agreement, in November 2011, with First-Choice Public-Private Partners to design and build a new courthouse as well as, construct interim space for Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and to renovate the existing General District Court building. The contract is $31,865,831. He said there are three items that must be paid if work is terminated: all work performed to date, general conditions and fixed fee associated with the work completed and the reasonable costs attributed to the termination, including demobilization costs, and amounts due in settlement of terminated contracts with Subcontractors and Design Consultants. The City has paid or incurred costs totaling over $4 million. He explained that there may also be legal fees incurred for outside counsel and the City would incur costs to stabilize the site if it’s abandoned by First- Choice. He also explained the implications of borrowing $35 million and not building 18029 Regular Session 09/18/12 the project and the negative implications it would have on the City’s bond rating. He further stated that terminating for convenience on a $35 million project would impact the City’s business reputation. City Attorney Dooley agreed with the report given by the City Manager and stated that there is a provision in the contract to pay the contractor as the City Manager outlined. She said the Council has been operating in a larger statutory environment that includes the statutory obligations to provide secure and adequate court facilities. Over the years many studies have been completed on the existing court facilities and determined that it is appropriate to move forward with building the facilities. The legal obligation is enforceable through the courts. She said doing nothing is not an option, but doing something is the only option. This is the course Council has established through the comprehensive agreement. Councilor Paolucci addressed a couple of comments made in regards to the down scaling of the courts. She said the courts have been downgraded but there were three proposals presented that had consolidated courthouses and the consolidated objective could have been achieved, but Council chose this site and court design. She said Council did know about the special uses and they weren’t a surprise, but she said what was a surprise was the start date of October 1. She asked at what point would the contract be terminated and could Council have a thirty day delay until after the retreat? Mr. Cameron explained that approvals are required on all the proposed special use permits and special exception in order for the project to move forward. In order to receive a building permit each of the items must be approved by Council, if one or more is not approved the project could not move forward and at that point the City would be compelled to terminate the 18030 Regular Session 09/18/12 contract. City Attorney Dooley said the contract provides opportunity for change orders but it will cost more. If a special use permit is denied then the contract would be terminated. The parking resources cause a contract termination because there is no room for onsite parking. In regards to the thirty day delay Mr. Cameron explained that the contract imposes a schedule which was part of the comprehensive agreement and is an important component of the contract. If the contractor does not complete the project on time they are required to pay the City liquidated damages. If Council decided it needs additional time to consider the planning and zoning issues then the contractor will want more time and may be entitled to additional money for project delay. If the City wants them to do nothing for 30-60 days the City will be legally required to pay. He asked Council what additional information was needed from staff. Mayor Greenlaw asked regarding parking what could be achieve in the next two weeks or thirty days other than initiate the development of a long-range parking plan, which Council intends to do anyway. She was concerned that some of the remaining questions would not be resolved in that time. This project is unique and different from garages or hotels or a developer coming to town because this is an existing services and the City is moving existing buildings, people, parking, they are not adding parking. She said it would be the same people parking as there are today. Vice-Mayor Ellis said with respect to the schedule that is a project management issue and sometimes schedules slip. He said he had requested integrated master schedule months ago that included every task to be completed but he has never seen one. He asked if the items were not approved what work could continue. He said he would like to know the time phased cost for five years before moving forward. 18031 Regular Session 09/18/12 Councilor Devine commented stating that the time phased costs are not before Council and the resolutions that are before Council are all substantial redesign of the project other than the curb cut, and she felt if everyone was not ready to move forward than the project was dead. She again stated that everyone knew the special use permits and special exceptions were coming for approval. Other than parking, which Council has agreed to look at as a long term solution they all kill the project. She feels it’s irresponsible to the taxpayers and citizens not to move forward at this point. She said she was ready to move forward with the conditions that parking and Renwick would be addressed. Councilor Howe asked what had been spent and what had been accomplished to date on the courts project. City Manger Cameron said $2,632,132 paid to First-Choice, $1,050,000 million was spent on the land, $102,900 spent on under cost, $263,376 additional encumbered on architectural and engineering services, and $32,787 additional encumbered on building and design fee. Councilor Howe said that out of the $4 million spent the City has received something out of it and all that would be forfeited is the design portion. He said the City has something to show for the $4 million spent. He said under the contract the City could suspend, repurpose and reschedule and while doing that the site could be stabilized for repurposing without killing the project. Mr. Cameron said the contract could be suspended for up to 60 days and he added that in July Council decided by a vote and a straw vote on whether they wanted to amend or modify the contract on the courthouse and Council accepted the 35 percent design plan. Councilor Howe clarified that only 4 voted for it and 3 voted against it. Although the plans had to move forward everyone was not in agreement with moving forward. He said he is 18032 Regular Session 09/18/12 looking for suggestions and solutions to move this forward. City Attorney Dooley said there is the ability to suspend the project, but it will cost and staff cannot confirm what work could be continued. She asked for clarification on what information Council was requesting in order to move forward on the proposed resolutions. Councilor Solley disagreed with Mr. Howe’s statement that we are to the good because we have moved Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court from one unsatisfactory building to a new temporary unsatisfactory building. He said that facility was not the final location for that court. He said we keep going down this same road and revisiting the same items over and over. He did not think holding the project up for thirty days would get the answers that some are looking for. He said a decision against the special use permits and the special exceptions would be irresponsible. He did agree that there could be a better handle on the lifetime cost, and he agree that something needed to be done with the Renwick building and parking needed to be discussed, but he felt holding the project up because of these items was not the answer. Councilor Howe stated for the record that those that have been against the project from the beginning are backed against a wall because they are being forced to make a decision on a project that they have been against from the beginning. Vice-Mayor Ellis stated that the life cycle study that was presented at the work session was not sufficient and Renwick was addressed in the stand alone resolution. He also said he feels like his back is against the wall. Councilor Solley asked Vice-Mayor Ellis if Council agreed to do a life-cycle cost analysis would that address his concerns. Vice-Mayor Ellis said he would like a time 18033 Regular Session 09/18/12 phased life-cycle cost on the estimates cost for the entire courts. City Attorney Dooley explained that Council would need a motion that hereby resolves that it would obtain a then year time phase life cycle for the operation of the court system for years 2015-2020 and direct the City manager to provide that information as soon as reasonably possible and Council would adopted this as a standalone resolution. Councilor Ellis noted that he would like it completed by the retreat so that it can be used at the retreat for planning purposes. City Manager Cameron asked what was insufficient with the life cycle cost that was provided at the work session. Vice-Mayor Ellis said it was not time phased cost; it only covered current year dollars. Mr. Cameron suggested Vice-Mayor Ellis meet with Mr. Downey the project manager. Resolution 12-83, Approved, Directing the City Manager to Provide a Time Phased Cost Estimate for the Operation of the Planned Courts Facilities for Fiscal Year 2015 through Fiscal Year 2020 (D12- 422). Councilor Solley made a motion to obtain a then year time phase life cycle for the operation of the court system for years 2015-2020 and direct the City manager to provide that information by the Council retreat on October 19; motion was seconded by Councilor Devine. Councilor Kelly expressed his disappointment with the whole process of the courts project and that every time a decision point is made it comes with a deadline. He asked if all the construction documents were complete and Mr. Cameron said they were not but what was complete was the structural work as it relates to the foundation and the design associated with the foundation and the shoring system and that’s what the building 18034 Regular Session 09/18/12 permit would be issued for. He said it would not include the entire structure. Councilor Kelly felt as though the project was not going through the normal procedure of getting all the documents completed and then build. He said the question on parking has been asked for six years and still no answer. He felt these resources could be better used elsewhere. The motion was approved by the following recorded votes. Ayes (5). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (2). Councilors Howe and Kelly. Resolution 12-84, Approved, Granting a Special Use Permit to the City of Fredericksburg for Establishment of a Court Facility on Property Located at the Intersection of Princess Anne and Charlotte Street, and for a Curb Cut on Charlotte Street for the Court Facility (D12-422). Upon a motion made by Councilor Solley Resolution 12-84 was approved, granting a Special Use Permit to the City of Fredericksburg for establishment of a court facility on property located at the intersection of Princess and Charlotte Street, and for a curb cut on Charlotte Street for the court facility; motion was seconded by Councilor Devine and passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (5). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (2). Councilors Howe and Kelly. Resolution 12-85, Approved, Granting a Special Exception to the City of Fredericksburg to Use Existing Off-Site Parking Resources in Lieu of Providing Parking on Site for the Proposed New Court Building at the Intersection of Princess Anne and Charlotte Street (D12-422). Upon a motion made by Councilor Devine Resolution 12-85 was approved, granting a special exception to the City of Fredericksburg to use existing off-site parking resources 18035 Regular Session 09/18/12 in lieu of providing parking on site for the proposed new court building at the intersection of Princess Anne and Charlotte Street; motion was seconded by Councilor Solley and passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (4). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine Paolucci and Solley. Nays (3). Councilors Howe, Kelly and Paolucci. Resolution 12-86, Approved, Granting a Special Exception to the City of Fredericksburg to Construct the New Court Building with a Floor Area Ratio of Approximately 3.5 in Lieu of the Maximum Floor Area Ratio of 3.0 in the C-D Commercial Downtown District (D12-422). Upon a motion made by Councilor Devine Resolution 12-86 was approved, granting a special exception to the City Of Fredericksburg to construct the new court building with a floor area ratio of approximately 3.5 in lieu of the maximum floor area ratio of 3.0 in the C-D Commercial Downtown District; motion was seconded by Councilor Solley and passed by the following recorded votes. Ayes (5). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (2). Councilors Howe and Kelly. Granting a Special Exception to the City of Fredericksburg to Construct the New Court Building that Reaches a Maximum Height of Approximately 57 Feet in Lieu of the 50 Foot Maximum Height in the C-D, Commercial Downtown District (D12-422). Upon a motion made by Councilor Solley Resolution 12-86 was approved, granting a special exception to the City Of Fredericksburg to construct the new court building that reaches a maximum height of approximately 57 feet in lieu of the 50 foot maximum height in the C-D, Commercial Downtown District; motion was seconded by Councilor Devine and passed by the 18036 Regular Session 09/18/12 following recorded votes. Ayes (5). Councilors Greenlaw, Ellis, Devine, Paolucci and Solley. Nays (2). Councilors Howe and Kelly. Resolution 12-79, Second Read Approved, Amending the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for Final Adjustments (D12-424). Upon a motion and as recommended Councilor Paolucci moved approval of Resolution 12-79, on second read, amending the fiscal year 2012 budget for final adjustments; 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). Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, Mayor Greenlaw declared the meeting officially adjourned at 10:30p.m. Mary Katherine Greenlaw Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Mayor Tonya B. Lacey Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council, CMC 18037 Regular Session 09/18/12 [This page intentionally left blank.] 18038