Public Hearing Meeting
Saturday, June 13, 1992 - - 9:30 am
* * * * *
Present: Mayor Patricia S. Ticer, Vice Mayor William C. Cleveland, Members of Council Kerry J. Donley, T. Michael Jackson, Redella S. Pepper, Lonnie C. Rich, and David G. Speck.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Mrs. Lawson, City Manager; Mr. Sunderland, City Attorney; Ms. Evans, Assistant City Manager; Ms. Steele, Deputy City Manager; Mr. O'Kane, Director of Transportation and Environmental Services; Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Gitajn, Director of Financial and Information Services; Mr. Platky, Director of Management and Budget; Mr. Neckel, Director of Finance; Ms. Boyd, Director of Citizen Assistance; Mr. Schott, Director of General Services; Mr. Pessoa, Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Spears, Deputy Director of Transportation and Environmental Services; Mr. Grossman and Mr. Leiberg from the Department of Planning and Community Department; Chief Fire Marshal Conner; and Lieutenant Robbins, Police Department.
Recorded by: Beverly I. Jett, CMC, City Clerk and Clerk of Council.
NOTE: A Work Session was held by City Council during the lunch break. Please see page 11 of these proceedings for items which were up for discussion during this Work Session.
OPENING
The Meeting was called to order by Mayor Ticer, and the City Clerk called the Roll; all Members of City Council were present.
(General Discussion. The Members of City Council discussed the order of business for today's meeting. It was decided that Council would go through Docket Item No. 13 before breaking for lunch with the exception of Docket Item No. 3 which would be considered immediately after lunch.)
2. Public Discussion Period.
(a) Frank Thorpe, 307 N. West Street, spoke in regard to his experience in getting a building permit to build a house in Alexandria, specifically to the undergrounding of utilities.
(A copy of Mr. Thorpe's statement is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 2(a); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
1
(b) John Smucker, 108 N. Quaker Lane, spoke about a new project on Quaker Lane called "Carlyle Walk". He spoke to the name of the streets in the property in the subdivision. He has been told by the Planning Department about the names to be used in the development. He was concerned about the courts within the subdivision being named Quaker Court because of problems that might arise with confusing it with Quaker Lane. He stated that his cousin, Cooper Dawson, and his wife's great grandfather, General Samuel Cooper, owned the twenty-six acres originally. He suggested that General Cooper might be so honored by having General Cooper's name placed on the little courts upon which the townhouses will be built.
(Staff was requested to look into Mr. Smucker's suggestion.)
(c) Edward Sheehy, 241 Tennessee Avenue, representing the Alexandria Commission on Aging, suggested amending the City's Zoning Code to explicitly recognize Single Room Occupancy (SROs) and make it feasible for the private sector to develop such affordable housing in response to market needs. He hopes that City Council will support the SRO proposal as one positive City action for affordable housing.
(d) Beverly Beidler, 647 Oakland Terrace, spoke about the Food Pavilion on the dock and indicated that all of the seats on the north side are roped off because they are not permitted to have that many seats.
(Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the Special Use Permit specifies a number of seats. They have wanted to extend their seating outside and what staff told them is that they can either put their seating inside or outside as they like. There is a fixed number of seats that were approved by Council. If they chose to come back and Council wants to increase the number of seats, you certainly are free to do so.)
(e) James Graham, 305 S. Royal Street, congratulated City staff on the new parking signs. He also spoke regarding the taxes. He suggested that Council should consider dropping the meals tax on food, and instead, put a higher tax on alcohol and beer.
(f) Sarita Schotta, 104 Prince Street, spoke to a problem that persists about double parking to unload groceries, etc. She has a file of recent double parking tickets. She had lost her case in court when she received a ticket for double parking in April and the Judge told her neighbors and her to send their parking tickets to City Council. She expressed concern that the Judge had dismissed a couple of cases of residential parking violators which means the enforcement goes nowhere if someone contests a ticket. They are still concerned that the block is paying around $15,000 to $18,000 a year to park at Duke and Union Street while the visitors can park free. This is unfair and they would like to see it reversed to the extent that they can park on the street and visitors go to the lots under Park and Shop.
(Mayor Ticer requested that Gwen [Lt. Robbins] bring this to the attention of the Police Chief and indicate that it was requested before that some leniency be applied for this kind of issue and come back to Council with a report as to what can be done about it and how we can solve this problem.)
(A copy of Ms. Schotta's letter dated 6/15/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked as Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 2 (f); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)2
(g) Ronald F. Cornelison, 1101 Francis Hammond Parkway, spoke requesting a reconsideration of an issue that was brought before Council last Tuesday involving the curb and gutter on Francis Hammond Parkway. He indicated that it was not the conditions that he entered into with the City in the building permit process. He also spoke to the issue of fairness. He indicated that it is also a fiscal responsibility of the City and that this is something that the City Council should be looking for to defer or cancel the kinds of expenses that are going to be incurred. It is a project in his estimation as an engineer that is going to create additional erosion by putting this project in. It is not solving a problem but creating a bigger problem. He requested that there be further study on this and that he be involved.
(General Discussion. Members of City Council, Mr. O'Kane, Director of Transportation and Environmental Services, the City Attorney, and the City Manager participated in the discussion of this item.
Staff was requested to come back with some suggestions for alleviating the one property owner's paying on this and the inequity of it and possibly an assessment district for this could be a good solution.)
(h) Shawn McLaughlin, Chair, Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, gave City Council a mid-year report on the status of the Authority.
(General Discussion. Members of City Council and the City Manager participated in the discussion.)
(i) Mayor Ticer noted that Dr. DeSimone, from the Emergency Department of the Alexandria Hospital, was going to speak on the opening of the hospital's chest pain center.
REPORTS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Planning Commission
4. SUP #2355-C - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to add outdoor seating to the restaurant located at 1120 King Street; zoned C-3, Commercial. Applicant: CEH First Limited Partnership, by Charles E. Hebbel.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Denial 7-0
NOTE: On June 9, 1992, it was the unanimous consent of Council to defer the public hearing and consideration of this item to Tuesday, June 23, 1992.
City Council considered Docket Item Nos. 5, 6, and 7 together. The City Clerk read the Docket Items.
5. SUP #2586 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for approval of a Special Use Permit to increase the height of a proposed professional office building in Height District No. 7 (Duke Street) above the by-right 50-foot limit to a maximum of 69 feet 11 inches (6 stories). The property is located at 3500 Duke Street and includes all of Lots 19.01, 19.02 and 19.03, Block 01, Assessment Map 60.04, is zoned C-2, Commercial and contains 1.6467 acres of lot area (80,444 square feet). Applicant: First Ameriland Development and Construction Company, by William C. Thomas, Jr., attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Denial 7-0
3
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 5; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
6. SUP #2587 — Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Transition Special Use Permit (TRANSUP) for a 165,000 gross-square-foot professional office building with medical/support offices and staff. Off-street parking is proposed to be provided in an underground parking garage. The property is located at 3500 Duke Street and includes all of Lots 19.01, 19.02 and 19.03, Block 01, Assessment Map 60.04, is zoned C-2, Commercial and contains 1.6467 acres of lot area (80,444 square feet). Applicant: First Ameriland Development and Construction Company, by William C. Thomas, Jr., attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Denial 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 6; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
7. SUP #2588 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for a 158,500-square-foot office building to consist of 117,500 square feet of medical office space and 41,000 square feet of medical/support space, with 648 parking spaces. The property is located at 3500 Duke Street and includes all of Lots 19.01, 19.02 and 19.03, Block 01, Assessment Map 60.04, is zoned C—2, Commercial and contains 1.6467 acres of lot area (80,444 square feet). Applicant: First Ameriland Development and Construction Company, by William C. Thomas, Jr., attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Denial 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 7; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
Copies of communications received on these items are on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 2 of Item Nos. 5, 6, 7; 6/13/92, and are incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on these items:
Bernard Fagelson, 1733 King Street, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in support;
Charles E. Hall, Jr., 12011 Lee Jackson Highway, Fairfax, architect representing the applicant, spoke in support;
Vernon Cockrell, 29 Cockrell Street, spoke in support;
T. Stephen Eggleston, 9 Cockrell Street, speaking on behalf of neighbors, spoke in support;
James O. Henriksen, 151 N. Quaker Lane, representing Seminary Hill Association, Inc., spoke in opposition; and
Mike Hicks, 124 N. Furman Street, representing Strawberry Hill Civic Association, spoke in opposition.
Mr. Fagelson offered his rebuttal and Members of City Council participated in the discussion.)
4
5. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Council Member Rich and carried on a vote of 5-to-2, City Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation and denied Special Use Permit #2586 to increase the height of the proposed building. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "no"
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson "aye"
Speck "no"
6. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Council Member Rich and carried on a vote of 5-to-1, City Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation and denied Special Use Permit #2587 which is a request for a TRANSUP. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "no"
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson "aye"
Speck out of room
7. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Council Member Rich and carried on a vote of 5-to-2, City Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation and denied Special Use Permit #2588 which is a request for a TMP. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "no"
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson "aye"
Speck "no"
8. SUBDIVISION #92-006 - Public Hearing and Consideration of an Appeal of a request for subdivision of the property located at 1003 Janney's Lane; zoned R-8, Residential. Applicant: David R. Murphy.
COMMISSION ACTION: Denied 6-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 5/5/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 8; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of Mr. Lynn's memorandum dated 6/11/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 8; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the 1992 Property Record Card for 1001 Janney's Lane is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 8; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the appeal dated 5/7/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 4 of Item No. 8; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of materials submitted by Mr. Murphy, applicant, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 5 of Item No. 8; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of a partial verbatim transcript for this item is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 6 of Item No. 8; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
5
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
David R. Murphy, 1213 Prince Street, Suite G-164, applicant, spoke in support of the appeal;
Robert C. Fields, Jr., 718 Jefferson Street, engineer for the applicant, did not speak but was available to answer questions; and
Thomas S. Moore, 1419 Janney's Lane, representing Seminary Hill Association, Inc., and the adversely affected neighbors, spoke against the appeal.
General Discussion. The City Attorney stated that on the three resolution items of Mr. Murphy's, the proper way to handle those since they are somewhat technical and they are staff items, the staff, himself included, will certainly be pleased to meet with Mr. Murphy to talk about the three issues to try to work something out.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission. [Denied this request.] The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich "aye"
City Council considered Docket Item Nos. 9, 10,11, and 12 together. The City Clerk read the Docket Items.
9. REZONING #92-02 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a comprehensive change in zone classification from RC Residential, and C-2 and C-2-B (proffered) Commercial to RC Residential, with proffers, for the properties located at 4600 and 4601 West Braddock Road (aka the Stone Tract), containing approximately 19.3 and 13.7 acres of land area respectively. Applicant: CIG/Holladay Corporation (contract purchaser) and Paulette J. Sen'Gerni, by Cyril D. Calley, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 9; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
10. Introduction and First Reading. Consideration. Passage on First Reading of AN ORDINANCE to rezone the properties, known as the Stone tract, located at 4600 and 4601 West Braddock Road, From R-C, C-2 and C-2-B to RC, with proffers.
(A copy of the proposed ordinance referred to in the above item, of which each Member of Council present received a copy not less than 24 hours before said introduction, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 10; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of an Informal Memorandum explaining ordinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 10; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
6
11. SUP #2589 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Transition Special Use Permit (TRANSUP) for up to 1,098 townhouse, garden condominiums and mid-rise condominiums. The property is located in the 4600 block of West Braddock Road, known as the "Stonegate Development," and contains 32.9 acres of lot area. The property is zoned RC Residential and C-2 and C-2-B (proffered) Commercial, with a requested rezoning to RC Residential, with proffers. Applicant: CIG International/Holladay Corporation, Robert Youngentob, by Cyril D. Calley, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 11; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
12. SUP #2590 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) Special Use Permit for 1,987 townhouse, garden condominiums and mid-rise condominiums. The property is located in the 4600 block of West Braddock Road, known as the "Stonegate Development," and contains 32.9 acres of lot area. The property is zoned RC Residential and C-2 and C-2-B (proffered) Commercial, with a requested rezoning to RC Residential with proffers. Applicant: CIG International/Holladay Corporation, Robert Youngentob, by Cyril D. Calley, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 12; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the Traffic Impact Statement and Traffic Management Plan dated April 1992, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 12; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on these items:
Harry P. Hart, 307 N. Washington Street, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in support and stated that Cyril D. Calley, Robert Youngentob, Bernard Fagelson, Terry Eakin and Chris Lessard have conceded their time. He stated that everyone who is present is in support of this application, including Jack Sullivan with whom he has spoken. He also indicated that Jack VanDopp and Barry Schenof as well as the above mentioned were present to answer any questions that Council may have. He stated that the representations and illustrations on the boards before Council will be left for the record except the aerial photograph; copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council and are incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
Members of City Council asked questions of Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart clarified that there are two totlots in the development as pointed out by Mr. Youngentob, developer.
The City Attorney stated the sprinklers are a building code item and cannot be required as part of a land use decision. He believed the requirement R-1 that requires the equipping of townhouse units with the sprinklers is not permissible. He understands that the applicant is willing though to provide an option to the purchasers of those units to have them equipped with sprinklers.
7
Ben Brenman, 4600 Duke Street, #1609, representing the Holmes Run Committee, spoke in support; and
Jack Sullivan, 4300 Ivanhoe Place, representing the Seminary Hill Association, spoke in support and endorsed that a convenience store be located within the development.
Mr. Hart stated on behalf of all of the applicants who are represented here, he agreed that a convenience store will be placed in parcel "C" subject to staff approval.)
9. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request for a comprehensive change in zone classification from RC Residential, and C-2 and C-2-B (proffered) Commercial to RC Residential, with proffers as stated by the applicant. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
10. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilman Speck and carried unanimously, City Council introduced and passed on First Reading AN ORDINANCE to rezone the properties, known as the Stone tract, located at 4600 and 4601 West Braddock Road, From R-C, C-2 and C-2-B to RC, with proffers, [and set it for Public Hearing, Second Reading and Final Passage on Tuesday, June 23, 1992]. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich "aye"
11. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilman Speck and carried unanimously, City Council approved Special Use Permit #2589, the "Stonegate Development", with the following amendments to condition R-1, the condition shall now read: "R-1 To provide an option to the purchasers of all townhouse residential units to be equipped with automatic sprinklers.''; with regard to "* R-33" , removed the "*" as the developer now agrees with R-33; in terms of R-37 which is the affordable housing component on page 6, line 4 after the word "shall" would read: "R-37 The applicant shall provide 25% of the total number of affordable units, and shall make a best effort to provide up to 50% of the total number of affordable units, in units that are larger than one-bedroom units."; a technical change to R-40 in line 5 after the word "between" add the following language: "the overall number of rental units on parcels A, B, D-1 and D-2 to" the overall...... "; delete the last line [sentence] in R-42; add R-43 to read: "R-43 Any temporary sales facility shall be placed on the site subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development."; and also add R-44 to read: "R-44 That a convenience store shall be placed in parcel C subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development." The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich "aye"
8
12. WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried unanimously, City Council approved the Transportation Management Plan Special Use Permit. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER
13. Public Hearing and Consideration of the Proposals for the Cameron/Columbus Street Parking Lot and Selection of a Developer. (#19 5/12/92) (RETAINED ITEM)
(A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 5/8/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 6/10/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the overheads entitled "Proposals for The Cameron/Columbus Parking Garage, June 1992, " is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the report dated June 11, 1992, from Christ Church Development Review Committee, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 4 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
Copies of communications received on this item are on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 5 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The City Manager made comments on this item and explained the process. Mr. O'Kane, Director of Transportation and Environmental Services, Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, and Mr. Platky, Director of Management and Budget, made a presentation going through the overheads which are identified as Exhibit No. 3 of this item.
The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Robert Brandt, 401 N. St. Asaph Street, representing Brandt Development team, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Jim Brown, 101-1/2 S. Union Street, architect representing Brandt Development team, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Lawrence L. Pearce, 201 N. Union Street, Managing Partner of Realco Cameron, spoke in support of the Realco proposal;
John Rust, 1215 Cameron Street, representing Realco, spoke in support of the Realco proposal;
Cyril D. Calley, 307 N. Washington Street, attorney representing developer, spoke in support of the Realco proposal;
9
Charles Huettner, 218 S. Fayette Street, president of Old Town Civic Association, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Sarah Becker, 1200 Princess Street, representing Inner City Civic Association, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Mark Kington, 209 N. Columbus Street, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
David Clanton, 202 N. Columbus Street, also representing his wife, Pamela J. Garvie, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Judy Guse-Noritake, 605 Prince Street, spoke in support of the Realco proposal;
Betty Hickey, 213 N. Columbus Street, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Bob Dempsey, 214 Prince Street, spoke commending John Rust's architectural projects in Old Town;
Judy McVay, 207 N. Columbus Street, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal and read statements of Susan Risheill Perry, 227 N. Columbus Street, and Patricia L. Braun, 206 N. Columbus Street, also in support of the Brandt proposal;
Cyril D. Calley, 307 N. Washington Street, read statement of Roberta Stein, 6060 Tower Court, #505, in support of the Realco proposal; a copy of Ms. Stein's statement is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 6 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference;
Madeleine Schaw, 718 Queen Street, also representing her husband, Walter Schaw, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Morgan D. Delaney, 808 Prince Street, representing the Historic Alexandria Foundation, spoke in support of the Realco proposal;
Charley Powers, 211 N. Columbus Street, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Denys Peter Myers, 201 N. Columbus Street, also representing his spouse, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal;
Howard R. Reasoner, 226 N. Columbus Street, spoke in support of the Brandt proposal and read statements of Edward G. Abramson, 216 N. Washington Street, and Rhoda Geasland Toombs, 215 N. Columbus Street, also in support of the Brandt proposal; a copy of Ms. Toombs statement is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 7 of Item No. 13; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference;
Margaret M. Welch, 422 N. St. Asaph Street, representing Christ Church as Chair of the Committee to Monitor Parking Lot Development, expressed concerns to insure that the quality of the project reflects the spirit of the neighborhood and the sacredness of Christ Church; and
Lee Quill, 1111 North Pitt Street, #2A, representing Christ Church, spoke in regard to the protection of the historic structure of Christ Church.
The public hearing was concluded.
10
General Discussion. Members of City Council participated in the discussion and asked questions of Mr. Pearce, General Partner, of Realco Cameron, Inc.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded simultaneously by Council Member Rich and Councilman Speck and carried unanimously, City Council selected Realco as the preferred developer for continued negotiations and provided staff guidance in terms of the continued negotiations. Some of the items that you brought up [such as] percentage of gross as opposed to percentage of net; in terms of the financial package that prior to any contract being signed or presented to Council that a commitment of financing be presented to the City; that compliance with the Board of Architectural Review and all other building codes be set forth as we would expect; and that the concerns that were submitted by Christ Church also be included in terms of the continued negotiations during the summer months and then bring back to Council in the fall; and added another item to the negotiations to very thoroughly examine the parking structure from the standpoint of security and safety. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Ticer "aye"
Rich "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Jackson "aye"
Pepper "aye"
Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., City Council recessed for lunch.
During the lunch break, the following items were to be addressed by Council during its Work Session on Boards and Commissions in the City Council Workroom: (1) The City Manager made opening remarks; (2) Beverly Steele, Deputy City Manager, gave an overview of major issues and recommendations with respect to Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces as well as Council requests. She was assisted by Rose Boyd, Director of Citizen Assistance.
Members of City Council participated in the discussion. Ms. Evans, Assistant City Manager, also participated in the discussion.
(A copy of the agenda and materials are on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council and are incorporated as part of the record by reference.)
Thereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the meeting was reconvened and the following transpired:
3. Public Hearing on the Candidates for Appointment to the School Board. (This item was heard immediately after the lunch break.)
The following School Board applicants spoke during this period: Virginia Adams; Patricia Anne Broussard, Carl Feusahrens, Leslie Hagan, Patricia Lopez, and Peter Nelsen.
Patricia Ann Hennig, 5761 Exeter Court, #262, and Melvin Miller, 3928 Colonel Ellis Avenue, spoke during this period. They both endorsed the reappointment of Virginia Adams and Leslie Hagan and the appointment of Patricia Anne Broussard.
It was noted that City Council will vote on the appointments on Tuesday, June 23, 1992.
11
REPORTS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (continued)
Planning Commission (continued)
14. SUP #2576 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant (tea room) located at 106 South Union Street; zoned I-2, Industrial.
Applicant: Olsson Enterprises, Inc., t/a Olsson's Books and Records, by William J. McClusky, (#7 5/16/92)
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 4-2
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 5/5/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 14; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
Copies of communications received on this item are on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 14; 6/13/92, and are incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
William J. McClusky, Jr., 106 S. Union Street, applicant, spoke in support;
Charles Huettner, 218 S. Fayette Street, president of Old Town Civic Association, spoke against and urged deferral until fall; and
Bob Dempsey, 214 Prince Street, spoke against and stated that it violated the Old Town Small Area Plan.
General Discussion. Mayor Ticer requested the Old Town Civic Association to work with staff to come up with a suitable definition of restaurant that would be an ancillary use, a no negative affect type use definition that we could live with.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council denied the Special Use Permit. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich "aye"
15. ENCROACHMENT #92-004 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for encroachment into the public right-of-way for the construction of signs located at 101-201 North Union Street; zoned I-2, Industrial. Applicant: Alexandria Waterfront Associates, by Gary Baker. (#21 5/16/92)
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 4-2
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 5/5/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 15; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of a letter of withdrawal dated 6/12/92, from Mr. Baker, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 15; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
WITHOUT OBJECTION, City Council noted the withdrawal.
12
City Council considered Docket Item Nos. 16 (a) and 16 (b) together. The City Clerk read the Docket Items.
16. (a) MASTER PLAN ADOPTION - Public Hearing and Consideration of the 1992 City of Alexandria, Virginia, Master Plan including certain amendments to previously approved Plan elements.
Commission Action: Approved 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 5/27/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 16 (a); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(General Discussion. The City Attorney explained this item.)
It was noted that no Council action was necessary on this item.
16. (b) Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE (a) to adopt the 1992 Master Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, by adopting and incorporating therein the fourteen small area plan chapters and the six text chapters on master plan goals, objectives, policies and strategies, land use, transportation, urban design, historic preservation and demographics, or any part thereof, which have already been adopted and certified by the planning commission and approved or approved and adopted by City Council as amendments to the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and (b) to repeal the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, as amended. (#32 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE) (RETAINED ITEM)
(Council stated that staff will study any suggested substantive amendments over the summer and come back to Council in the fall.
The City Attorney stated that if there are some technical errors and language changes that need to be made, Council can make them at this time. He had summarized all of the written submissions that have been made to date and had reviewed them all and they all make substantive changes. Those changes should go back to staff and staff will come back in the fall with a recommendation on all of them. He stated that staff has a couple of technical changes to make today when the motion is made. If there are others that can be made today, Council can try to do them; however, they are for the most part substantive changes that will get referred back.
The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Janet Brenner, 401 Commonwealth Avenue, spoke in regard to Potomac West Small Area Plan maps 15, 16 and 17 concerning a small strip of land between Maple and Linden Streets, #32 on the map, page 0895;
It was decided that this item was a complex issue and it would be studied by staff over the summer.
Donald F. Simpson, 2750 Eisenhower Avenue, representing Simpson Development Company and the Lehigh Portland Cement Company; a verbatim transcript of his comments is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 16 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference;
13
Herbert L. Munday, 403 E. Monroe Avenue, made a statement for the record that under the new zone his property will be rezoned from RB to R-2-5. It has become evident to him that it is unlikely that he can market that property and it cannot be sold for a reasonable price under the R-2-5. He stated for the record that if, in fact, a reduced marketability and loss of value of his property resulting therefrom, then in his opinion a restitution of the financial loss incurred by him would be appropriate. He just wanted to make this statement for the record for the future.
The City Attorney indicated that Mr. Munday may be correct that the value of his property has been diminished somewhat. He stated that that is the consequence of the rezoning that is occurring in some other instances only and that the mere fact that the value of the property has decreased, perhaps, does not in any sense make the City's action improper or unlawful. Staff will take another look at it over the summer. The items that come up today will be placed on a list and come forward to Council in the fall.
Ray Lewis, 1414 Prince Street, representing the Land Use Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that since there are no suggestions for text changes, he will wait until June 23, which is probably a more appropriate time;
Bob Richards, 121 Duke Street, Vice President, Alexandria Chamber of Commerce, stated that Ray Lewis and he would probably coordinate their time and he will yield his time to Ray who will either speak today or on June 23;
Donald A. Doheny, Jr., 7504 S. Valley Drive, Fairfax Station, attorney representing the Hoffman family, owners of the Hoffman property in Eisenhower Valley, spoke in opposition to the Master Plan in general;
Marilyn Doherty, 12 W. Mt. Ida Avenue, stated that since council is sending all substantive amendments to staff for comment over the summer, that is what she wants Council to do; and
Harry P. Hart, 307 N. Washington Street, attorney representing several landowners, spoke to the issues that he submitted in writing to the City Attorney. Mr. Hart requested City Council to simply refer most of them over to staff to report back to Council in the fall; a copy of Mr. Hart's requests are incorporated in the City Attorney's summary of written requested changes which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 16 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
The public hearing was concluded.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a unanimous ROLL-CALL vote, City Council passed the ordinance enacting a new comprehensive master plan for the City, entitled the 1992 Master Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and repealing the City's existing master plan, entitled the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:14
ORDINANCE NO. 3576
AN ORDINANCE (a) to adopt the 1992 Master Plan for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, by adopting and incorporating therein the fourteen small area plan chapters and the six text chapters on master plan goals, objectives, policies and strategies, land use, transportation, urban design, historic preservation and demographics, or any part thereof, which have already been adopted and certified by the planning commission and approved or approved and adopted by City Council as amendments to the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and (b) to repeal the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, as amended.
WHEREAS, the City Council of Alexandria finds and determines that:
1. In April 1987, city council directed that the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, be updated and revised.
2. On November 10, 1987, city council appointed a master plan task force to assist the department of planning and community development, other city agencies and departments, the planning commission and city council in this endeavor. In December 1988 the master plan task force transmitted to the city council and planning commission its Report On Goals and Objectives and on Development Potential Areas, which has been considered by the planning commission and city council in updating and revising the master plan.
3. Pursuant to the directive of city council, the department of planning and community development has held a series of meetings with residents and property owners throughout the city, for the purpose of identifying land use and other master plan issues within the entire city and each area comprising the fourteen small area plan chapters of the master plan, and for the purpose of soliciting public comment and suggestion as to such issues.
4. At the conclusion of these community meetings, the department of planning community development has prepared, and has submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Alexandria, the fourteen small area plan chapters of the master plan.
5. After full opportunity for comment and public hearing, the planning commission has heretofore revised the said small area plan chapters, and by resolution adopted and certified each such revised small area plan chapter to city council for adoption as an amendment to the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, as amended.
6. City council has heretofore conducted informational public hearings on each small area plan chapter, as certified by the planning commission, and has approved each such small area plan, as amended by the city council.
7. In addition, city council has heretofore adopted each such small area plan chapter, except the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens' small area plan chapter, by ordinance as an amendment to the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
15
8. With respect to the Potomac Yards/Potomac Greens small area plan chapter:
(a) The 14 million square feet development proposal advanced as the basis for a small area plan by the owners and developers of the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens sites (1) is overly dense and incompatible with the existing residential character of the city, (2) will have unacceptable disruptive impacts on the existing residential neighborhoods to the east, west and south of the sites, and (3) will, apart from traffic congestion generated by 20 years of regional growth, result in the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and the unacceptable lengthening of traffic congestion beyond the peak hour to include other hours in the peak period and the lengthening of the peak period itself; and
(b) No credible evidence contrary to the findings and conclusions of the planning commission expressed in its resolution adopting the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens' small area plan has been presented to the city council and the planning commission's findings and conclusions are ratified, confirmed and adopted by city council; and
(c) Based upon present and reasonably foreseeable conditions and trends, the plan of development set forth in the Potomac Yard/Potomac Greens' small area plan chapter accomplishes a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the geographic portion of the city within such small area plan, preserves and protects the existing residential character of the city as a whole, preserves existing neighborhoods, allows an appropriate level of economic growth within the geographic area encompassed by the small area plan that is consistent with the general welfare of the residents of the city, and is economically viable.
9. The process of amending the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan has been completed with the approval of the fourteen small area plan chapters, encompassing all areas within the corporate jurisdiction of the City of Alexandria, together with the six associated text chapters on master plan goals, objectives, policies and strategies, land use, transportation, urban design, historic preservation, and demographics, which small area plan and text chapters are herein referred to as the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
10. The planning commission has reviewed and considered as a whole the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and, on the 27th day of May 1992, conducted a duly advertised hearing thereon with all public testimony and written comment considered, and has approved and certified same to the city council.
11. The 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, is necessary and desirable to guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the city as a whole and of the geographical divisions thereof encompassed within each small area plan chapter.
12. The 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, establishes a cohesive and comprehensive plan to preserve and protect the existing residential character of the city, to preserve existing neighborhoods, and to direct economic growth to appropriate locations consistent with the general welfare of the residents of the city.
16
13. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other facts and circumstances of which city council may properly take notice in its capacity as the legislative body of the City of Alexandria, adoption by this ordinance of the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, is necessary and desirable to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Alexandria; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the findings and conclusions expressed by the planning commission in its resolution adopting the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, which resolution is attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by reference, are ratified, confirmed and adopted by the Council of the City of Alexandria.
Section 2. That the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, comprised of the maps, plats, charts and descriptive matter attached hereto and incorporated by reference is hereby adopted in its entirety as the Master Plan of the City Alexandria, Virginia, in accord with §§ 2.04(w) and 9.01 of the Charter of the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
Section 3. That the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, shall supersede the 1974 Adopted Consolidated Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, which plan and all ordinances adopting and amending same are hereby repealed.
Section 4. That the city clerk shall transmit a duly certified copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and the said Clerk of the Circuit Court shall file same among the court records.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
(A copy of ordinance No. 3576, together with the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, comprised of the maps, plats, charts and descriptive matter attached to the ordinance, is also on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 16 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)17
City Council considered Docket Item Nos. 17 (a) and 17 (b) together. The City Clerk read the Docket Items.
17. (a) TEXT AND MAP ADOPTION - Public Hearing and Consideration of Adoption of a Zoning Code for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, including New Zoning Regulations and New Zoning Maps.
Commission Action: Adopted 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 5/27/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 17 (a); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of a protest dated 4/3/92, from Mr. Riggs, President of RF&P Corporation, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 17 (a); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
17. (b) Introduction and First Reading. Consideration. Passage on First Reading of AN ORDINANCE to adopt a new comprehensive zoning plan, in furtherance of the 1992 Master Plan of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and comprised of new or substantially revised zoning regulations and maps, and to repeal all prior ordinances adopting or amending the zoning regulations or maps within the city.
(A copy of the proposed ordinance referred to in the above item, of which each Member of Council present received a copy not less than 24 hours before said introduction, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 17 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of an Informal Memorandum explaining ordinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 17 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of a letter dated 6/12/92, from Ms. Reifsnyder, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 17 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The City Attorney made two comments that may address some of the comments that people may have. One has to do with the provisions in the new zoning code regarding site plans and, in particular, the time in which construction is to begin under site plans. The technical amendment that is made later on will address this. Council is going to reinsert some of the erroneously lined-through provisions in the code, and specifically Section 11-418. Council is going to reinsert the old 11-418 and eliminate the new Section 11-418. Also, there is another item later on in the docket dealing with political signs. In order to get over a procedural hurdle, if Council is inclined to adopt the ordinance which is Item No. 39, they need to bring that item up front and include that in the text amendment action in Item 17 (a). He proposed that Council go through the public hearing on 17 (a), but before any action is taken, take a look at Item 39 before Council approves 17. Also, in section 11-419 (b), there will be a technical change proposed to take out the "one-day period", which should read "one year".
18
The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Carol Weber, 203 Yoakum Parkway, #615, spoke on behalf of the Community Services Board; a copy of her statement is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 17 (a); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference;
Charles Schotta, 104 Prince Street, spoke regarding assurance that no change in the present zoning of any lot on Captains' Row be made as a result of the adoption of the new Zoning Code, including new zoning regulations and new zoning maps;
Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that the only non-residential property on that block is the one at the corner, the Christmas Attic which is zoned commercial, all the rest of the block remains RM.
Duncan W. Blair, 510 King Street, attorney speaking on behalf of Montgomery Corporation, requested that a draft amendment to the non-conforming use ordinance submitted to the City Attorney's office be included in the summer review. Additionally, on the site plan ordinance, Mr. Blair stated that in Section 419 that there is a date of February 23, 1985, in September 1990, the Planning Commission changed that date to September 1984; a copy of Mr. Blair's draft amendment is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 4 of Item No. 17 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference; and
Bob Richard, 121 Duke Street, vice president of Chamber of Commerce, expressed concerns of the Chamber such as issues of the impact of lower densities on the quality of development to the necessity of planning a little more comprehensively, looking at transportation planning, and environmental planning, and urged Council to consider the fact that Alexandria not be placed at a disadvantage so that economic recovery in Alexandria is retarded.
General Discussion. Members of City Council participated in the discussion of this item.
The public hearing was concluded on this item.)
AT THIS POINT, City Council considered Docket Item No. 39.
39. Introduction and First Reading. Consideration. Passage on First Reading of AN ORDINANCE to amend the provisions of the city code relating to political signs.
The City Clerk read the docket item.
WHEREUPON, a motion was made by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Jackson to amend the ordinance [in terms of the City Attorney's memorandum dated 6/11/92] on page 2, item (c) where it says "within 30 feet", she would like to say "within 15 feet at the end of any street median regardless of the median's width -- for example:" where it shows instead of the 30 feet, we would have 15 feet on each end, and also on the next page [page 3 of the City Attorney's memorandum], where it discusses point 3, it says that signs "may be supported by no more than 2 supports, each measuring no more than one inch by two inches in width", she would like to change that to "three supports".
19
(General Discussion. Members of City Council participated in the discussion of this item with respect to what accounts for a support. It is understood that one support may be two poles back to back as long as it is within the size limitations.
Councilman Speck raised the point in the public's interest that this was not docketed as a public hearing item today.
The City Attorney explained that it will continue to come in as the introduction and first reading of the ordinance. This would move it into the text amendment.
Councilman Speck stated that he was concerned that Council not lock this thing in such a way that the public does not feel that they do not have an opportunity to participate. Councilman Speck is opposed to both amendments. He felt that this was no accident that the language was drafted the way it was. It was designed deliberately to deal with the problem that was raised last spring with the tremendous proliferation of signs. The intent of this language was to severely limit the places where signs could be placed on public property. He stated also that probably at least indirectly it placed greater emphasis on the importance of signs on private property. He stated making the two amendments would put Council back in the position at least to some extent of allowing the problem to start again. His recommendation is to hold to the recommendations submitted by the task force and go through another election cycle. If there is a problem, Council can always change it.
The City Attorney stated he wants Council to vote on the content of Docket Item No. 39 now as part of 17 (a) which is amending the zoning code.
Councilman Speck wanted to be clear that Council is not voting to make the changes that have been suggested.
The motion made by Councilwoman Pepper and seconded by Councilman Jackson was withdrawn.
Please see page 34 of these proceedings for action taken on Docket Item No. 39.
AT THIS POINT, Council returned to the motion concerning Docket Item 17 (a).
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a unanimous ROLL-CALL vote, City Council adopted the amendments to the City of Alexandria Zoning Code which are contained in the proposed ordinance that is docket item 17(b) of today's meeting and which set forth new or substantially revised zoning regulations and a new zoning map for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, with the following amendments: (1) Zoning Code, Section 4-1105, page 47, Section (C) Floor Area Ratio, subsubsubsection (b) in the 7th line down where it begins "provided however that" and the word "if" and all lines to the end have been stricken through, delete the portion stricken through and substitute the following: ... "this subsubsubsection shall not apply to lots abutting King Street nor to lots west of Daingerfield Road."; (2) that subsections (A) through (C) of section 11-418, on pages 51-53 of Article 11, be deleted and replaced with subsections (A) through (C) of section 11-418, on pages 49-51, which have strike-throughs, and further that in subsection (C), in the 3rd line, the word "final" be deleted and in the 4th line the word "subsection" be amended to read "section"; that subsection (D) of20
section 11-418, on page 53, remain in effect as subsection (D); that subsection (D) of section 11-418, on page 51, which has strike-throughs be included in section 11-418 but as subsection (E), and that in the 3rd line of this new subsection (E) the word "required" be amended to read "refunded"; that section 11-419(B), on page 55 of Article 11, be amended in both the 11th and 21st lines by deleting the words "the day" and inserting in their place the phrase "one year"; and (3) that the amendments to the political sign regulations, which are set out in item 39 of today's docket and in the proposed ordinance which is part of that docket item, and more specifically the amendments to old city code sections 171 and 180(a)(11) be made to and included in section 9-101, on page 5 of Article 9, and section 9-201(A)(11), on page 14 of Article 9, respectively, of the zoning text amendments that we are now approving. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
17. (b) WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried unanimously, City Council passed on First Reading the ordinance as docket item 17(b) of today's meeting which sets forth new or substantially revised zoning regulations and a new zoning map for the City of Alexandria, Virginia, with the same three amendments that Council adopted in connection with docket item 17(a), and that the ordinance, as amended, be set for public hearing and final passage on June 23, 1992. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
18. SUP #2557-A - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to amend the hours of operation of the restaurant, located at 815-A King Street; zoned C-3, Commercial. Applicant: Division Enterprises, Inc., by Hakan Ilhan.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 6-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 18; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried unanimously, City Council approved the Planning Commission recommendation and approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
21
19. SUP #2581 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate an automobile repair garage located at 5316 Eisenhower Avenue; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: East Coast Transmissions, Inc., by Homayoun Nouri-Moghadam.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 6-1
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 19; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(Bernard M. Fagelson, 1733 King Street, attorney representing the applicant, was available to answer questions.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Council Member Rich and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the added Condition #9. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson "aye"
Speck "aye"
20. SUP #2583 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to add delivery service to the existing full-service and carry-out restaurant located at 1049 West Glebe Road; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: Pizza Hut of Washington (Pizza Hut, Inc.), by William C. Thomas, Jr., attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 20; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(William C. Thomas, Jr., 1733 King Street, attorney representing the applicant, was available to answer questions.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Council Member Rich and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the added Condition #14. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson "aye"
Speck "aye"
21. SUP #2456-D - Public Hearing and Consideration of a review of the approved Special Use Permit for an automobile repair and sales business located at 3700 Jefferson Davis Highway; zoned I-2, Industrial. Applicant: Daria Karimian.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 21; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
22
(William C. Thomas, 1733 King Street, attorney representing the applicant, was available to answer questions.
Councilwoman Pepper commended the establishment for its appearance; although they truly are abiding by the spirit of the law, there continues to be a great deal of littering.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the amended Condition #16. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
22. SUP #1232-C - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to add truck and van rental to the automobile sales business located at 2414-2416 Oakville Street; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: Lindsay Cadillac Company, by J. Howard Middleton, Jr., attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 22; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(Jonathan Rak, 510 King Street, #200, attorney representing the applicant, answered questions concerning Condition #14.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Council Member Rich, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the added Condition #14. The voting was as follows:
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Speck "aye"
23. SUP #1302-B - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to change the ownership and hours of operation of the restaurant located at 3402 Mount Vernon Avenue, to be known as Popeye's; zoned C-2, Commercial. Applicant: John J. Meilert, t/a Moo Inc.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 23; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of Mr. Meilert's letter to Mr. Lynn dated 6/10/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 23; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
John J. Meilert, P. 0. Box 391, Upperville, VA, applicant, stated that Planning Commission Conditions #8 and #12 seemed to overlap and he gave a letter to Mr. Lynn offering a compromise sign; and
23
Eric R. Wagner, 2416 Sanford Street, representing Del Ray Citizens Association, spoke in support of the application and to the issue of signage. He indicated that the Association would like to improve the appearance along Mount Vernon Avenue and the Association's preference is the monument-style sign. He spoke to the compromise sign.
City Council participated in the discussion of the signage and asked questions of Mr. Meilert.
Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, participated in the discussion and summarized the issues concerning the signage.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Vice Mayor Cleveland, seconded by Councilman Jackson and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the added Condition #11 and changed Condition #8 to read: "8. That the signage be constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development after consultation with the owner and the neighborhood"; and deleted Condition #12. The voting was as follows:
Cleveland "aye" Donley "aye"
Jackson "aye" Pepper "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
24. SUP #1368-A - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit for a second-floor expansion of the existing health club located at 255-257 South Van Dorn Street, within the Van Dorn Plaza Shopping Center; zoned C-2-B, Commercial. Applicant: Club Management, Inc., by Jonathan P. Rak, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 24; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following person participated in the public hearing on this item:
Jonathan Rak, 510 King Street, #200, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in support and recommended a minor change in Condition #9 and stated that the Merchant's Association unanimously approved of the plan and the application.
The Mayor stated that the last sentence of Condition #9 shall read as follows: "It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to demonstrate that a majority of the retail merchants between Spa Lady and Stevenson Avenue consent to the change."
24
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried unanimously, City Council approved the Planning Commission recommendation and approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations, and the added Conditions #3 through #8, and #10 as submitted by the applicant, and the added Condition #11 by the Planning Commission, and amended Condition #9 to read: "9. That the number, location and time limits of short-term parking spaces be revised by the property owner to accommodate changing needs of the merchants with the consent of the Director of Planning and Community Development or his designee. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to demonstrate that a majority of the retail merchants between Spa Lady and Stevenson Avenue consent to the change." The voting was as follows:
Jackson "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
25. SUP #1898-B - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special use Permit to amend the hours of operation of the restaurant located at 305 South Washington Street; zoned C-3, Commercial. Applicant: Trattoria da Franco, by Louis J. D'Amelio, Sr.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 25; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
(General Discussion. Councilman Speck spoke to the new Condition #18 with respect to the closing hour. Members of City Council and Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, participated in the discussion of this item.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Jackson and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the amended Condition #16 and the added Condition #20. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Jackson "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
26. SUP #2027-A - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to expand the gasoline service station located at 2838 Duke Street; zoned I-1, Industrial.Applicant: Rick's Inc., by Neil T. Hitchock.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 26; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of a letter dated 6/11/92, from CSX Realty, Inc., is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 26; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)25
(Councilwoman Pepper spoke to the letter that Council received from CSX regarding an ongoing problem with discharge of wastewater.
The City Attorney stated that Mr. Rak was consulted and stated that this use requires a site plan for the expansion. As part of the site plan, it will have to comply with the Chesapeake Bay regulations which include water quality issues and storm management issues. They felt that the concerns are going to be taken care of in the site plan process.
Neil T. Hitchcock, 1021 Duke Street, representing Rick's Inc., stated that he has the letter from CSX and planned on keeping them abreast of what the development plan is and will submit a final site plan. He believes that the items that are addressed have to do with the property that is actually adjacent to their's.
Mr. O'Kane, Director of Transportation and Environmental Services, stated he was comfortable with what has been discussed and that the site plan was the key element.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Council Member Rich, seconded simultaneously by Councilman Donley and Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the amended Conditions #3 and #14, deleted Condition #5, and the added Conditions #15 and #16. The voting was as follows:
Rich "aye" Ticer "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Pepper "aye"
Speck "aye"
27. SUP #2421-A - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to change the ownership and amend the hours of operation of the restaurant located at 127 South Peyton Street; zoned C-3, Commercial. Applicant: Jung Ja Oh, by Sang Kuen Park, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 27; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded simultaneously by Councilmen Donley and Jackson and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Ticer "aye"
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Jackson "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
26
28. SUP #2428-A - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to add an automobile repair garage to the automobile detailing and cleaning business located at 615 South Pickett Street, Unit D, within the Van Dorn Station Shopping Center; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: Golden Touch Auto Detailing and Majestic Limousine Service, by Bozorgmehr Shafa.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 28; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Vice Mayor Cleveland, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and deleted Conditions #8 and #9 and the added Condition #12. The voting was as follows:
Cleveland "aye" Donley "aye"
Pepper "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
29. SUP #2578 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate an automobile wholesale business located at the rear of 5800 Edsall Road; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: General Trading Corporation, by Rocky Robinson.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 29; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Larry Stansbury, 6101 Edsall Road, president of Alexandria Knolls West Condominium, spoke in support with reservations. He expressed concern about the trucks loading in front of the building; and
Rocky Robinson, representing the applicant, stated that he has already hired a fence company to create a chain to prevent that type of loading from the front of the building.
General Discussion. Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, suggested to Council that a condition be added that the applicant erect a sign putting trucks on warning that they are not allowed to do unloading there.
The applicant was agreeable to this condition.)
27
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and amended Condition #18 to be a six-month review and added a Condition #20 to read: "20. That the applicant erect a sign putting trucks on warning that they are not allowed to do unloading." The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
30. SUP #2580 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to add an amusement facility (pool tables) to the restaurant located at 642 South Pickett Street; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: Pickett, Inc., d/b/a Nicky's Restaurant, by Nick J. Dugovich.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Denial 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 30; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Nick Dugovich, 642 S. Pickett Street, applicant, requested a deferral of this issue by the City Council at this time to try to alleviate concerns of neighborhood groups;
Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that there is an issue that this property owner currently has the pool tables installed there. If Council does not reach agreement with it now, there is going to be a long period of time before Council meets again.
It was decided to go forward with the public hearing.
Ben Brenman, 4600 Duke Street, #1609, representing the Holmes Run Committee, spoke in opposition;
James Marx, 4709 Surry Place, representing the Holmes Run Committee, spoke in opposition;
Janet Potash, 309 Yoakum Parkway, #609, representing Watergate at Landmark Condominium, spoke in opposition;
Larry Stansbury, 6101 Edsall Road, president of Alexandria Knolls West Condominium, spoke in opposition;
L. Virginia Fernbach, 307 Yoakum Parkway, #610, representing Watergate at Landmark Condominium, spoke in opposition; and
Patricia Severs, 225 S. Whiting Street, #509, spoke in opposition.
Mr. Dugovich spoke in support of his application.
Members of City Council participated in the discussion of this item.
The public hearing was concluded.)
28
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Jackson and carried on a vote of 5-to-2, City Council denied this request and upheld the Planning Commission recommendation. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "no"
Jackson "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "no"
31. SUP #2584 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to continue the operation of the existing rooming house located at 403 East Monroe Avenue; zoned RB, Residential. Applicant: Herbert L. Munday.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 31; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Herbert L. Munday, 403 E. Monroe Avenue, applicant, spoke in support of this with a request that it should continue as a residence and as a rooming house indefinitely and read a letter in support from tenant, Werner Lindenblaugh;
Philip Randolto, 403 E. Monroe Avenue, spoke in support of this request for longer than two years;
Eric R. Wagner, 2416 Sanford Street, representing Del Ray Citizens Association, spoke in support of the application with the Planning Commission's conditions;
George Coburn, Jr., 403 E. Monroe Avenue, spoke in support of this request for longer than two years;
Kate W. Daniels, 320 E. Monroe Avenue, spoke in support of this request with the Planning Commission's recommendation; and
Marilyn Doherty, 12 W. Mt. Ida Avenue, spoke in support of this request with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
General Discussion. Members of Council, Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, and the City Attorney participated in the discussion.
The public hearing was concluded on this item.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Donley and called unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the added Condition #2, with the deletion of #3 as added by the Planning Commission, and approved the permit for five years with a two-year review. The voting was as follows:
Jackson "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Pepper "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "aye"
Speck "aye"
29
32. SUP #2585 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate an amusement enterprise (for fortune readings) located at 2006 Mount Vernon Avenue; zoned C-2, Commercial. Applicant: Theresa Wallace.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Denial 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 32; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following person participated in the public hearing on this item:
John T. Donelan, 125 S. Royal Street, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in support of this request.
It was noted that Eric R. Wagner, 2416 Sanford Street, representing the Del Ray Citizens Association, did not speak on this item, but the Association was in opposition.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council affirmed the Planning Commission's denial [of the request]. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson "aye"
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich "aye"
33. SUP #2591 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant located at 514 South Van Dorn Street, Unit B, within the Van Dorn Station Shopping Center; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: David C. Gates, Kathleen A. Gates and Scott W. Gates.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 33; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded simultaneously by Council Member Rich and Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried unanimously, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Ticer "aye"
Rich "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson "aye"
Pepper "aye"
30
34. SUP #2592 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate an automobile repair garage located at 200 North Henry Street; zoned I-1, Industrial. Applicant: M. Suleiman Hessami.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 6-1
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 34; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
Duncan W. Blair, 510 King Street, attorney representing the owner of the property, James Duncan, and Mr. Suleiman Hessami, applicant, spoke in support; and
Mary Wood, 309 N. Fayette Street, spoke, on behalf of herself and the Inner City Civic Association, in opposition.
It was noted that Melissa Luby, 312-1/2 N. Henry Street, had signed up to speak in opposition to this request, but had to leave.
Mr. Blair offered his rebuttal.
General Discussion. Council Member Rich asked a question of staff regarding the new CD zone as to whether it permits any major or minor automotive repair. Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, indicated that neither major nor minor auto repair is allowed in the CD zone.
Councilman Donley stated although the site is zoned CD, this SUP would allow this to come in as a non-complying use which means it could not be enlarged beyond what is called for in the application. Once the use goes away, it would have to comply with the CD zone.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilman Jackson and carried on a vote of 4-to-3, City Council approved the Planning Commission recommendation and approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the added Condition #11. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "no"
Jackson "aye" Pepper "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich "no"
Speck "no"
It was noted at 7:15 pm., Councilman Jackson left the meeting.
35. SUP #2593 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate a restaurant with carry-out service located at 3601 Eisenhower Avenue; zoned CO, Commercial. Applicant: Kum Song Sung.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 35; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.31
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a vote of 6-to-0, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson left meeting
Rich "aye"
It was noted at 7:20 p.m., Council Member Rich left the meeting.
36. SUP #2594 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to construct an additional parking area for the Foxchase Shopping Center located at 4501-4601 Duke Street; zoned RA, Residential and C-2, Commercial. Applicant: First Alexandria Associates, by H. Alan Young, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 5-2
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 36; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of a letter dated 6/12/92, from H. Alan Young, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 36; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following persons participated in the public hearing on this item:
H. Alan Young, 510 King Street, attorney representing the applicant, spoke in support and suggested that Condition #1 be amended to read: "1. This parking area is to be used primarily for the employees of the Foxchase Shopping Center. The shop owners shall take all reasonable steps to encourage their employees to park in this area provided in the rear of the shopping center."; and
Mayor Ticer asked questions of Mr. Young.
Ben Brenman, 4600 Duke Street, #1609, representing the Holmes Run Committee, spoke in support.
General Discussion. Members of City Council and Mr. Lynn, Director of Planning and Community Development, participated in the discussion.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a vote of 5-to-0, City Council approved the Special Use Permit application, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the amended Conditions #2 and #3 by the Planning Commission, and with substitution of Condition #1 as submitted by the Attorney for the Applicant, Mr. Young, to read: #1. This parking area is to be used primarily for the employees of the Foxchase Shopping Center. The shop owners shall take all reasonable steps to encourage their employees to park in this area provided in the rear of the shopping center."; and added a Condition #4 to read: "4. That there be a one-year review to review if problems do result from employees parking in front of the shopping center." The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
32
37. SUP #2595 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit for an automobile telephone installation business located at 3165 Duke Street, within the Hechinger Commons Shopping Center; zoned C-2-B, Commercial. Applicant: Cellular Services of Washington, by Richard Dugan.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 37; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
(The following person participated in the public hearing on this item:
Bernard M. Fagelson, 1733 King Street, Suite 300, attorney for the applicant, spoke in support of this application and answered questions of Councilman Speck.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Speck and carried on a vote of 4-to-0, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations and the amended Condition #3 and the added Condition #8. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer out of room Jackson left meeting
Rich left meeting
38. SUP #2596 - Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to operate a bakery restaurant with carry-out service and wholesale service located at 295 South Van Dorn Street, within the Van Dorn Plaza Shopping Center; zoned C-2, Commercial. Applicant: H D & H Bakeries, Inc., by Howard Kinitsky, David Anderson and Harry Filiou.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Approval 7-0
(A copy of the Planning Commission report dated 6/2/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 38; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Speck and carried on a vote of 4-to-0, City Council approved the request, subject to compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances and staff recommendations. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer out of room Jackson left meeting
Rich left meeting
33
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
39. Introduction and First Reading. Consideration. Passage on First Reading of AN ORDINANCE to amend the provisions of the city code relating to political signs.
(A copy of the City Attorney's memorandum dated 6/11/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 39; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the proposed ordinance referred to in the above item, of which each Member of Council present received a copy not less than 24 hours before said introduction, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 39; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of an Informal Memorandum explaining ordinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 39; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried on a vote of 5-to-0, City Council introduced and passed the ordinance on First Reading; set it for Public Hearing, Second Reading and Final Passage on Tuesday, June 23, 1992. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich left meeting
40. Introduction and First Reading. Consideration. Passage on First Reading of AN ORDINANCE to authorize the director of finance, whenever appropriately directed by a juror serving in the Alexandria circuit court, to pay all or a portion of the fee due the juror to the court service unit of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court or to another agency or office providing services to the city courts.
(A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 6/10/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 40; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of the proposed ordinance referred to in the above item, of which each Member of Council present received a copy not less than 24 hours before said introduction, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 40; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of an Informal Memorandum explaining ordinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. 40; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
34
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded simultaneously by Vice Mayor Cleveland and Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a vote of 5-to-0, City Council introduced and passed the ordinance on First Reading; set it for Public Hearing, Second Reading and Final Passage on Tuesday, June 23, 1992. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Ticer "aye"
Cleveland "aye" Jackson left meeting
Pepper "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
41. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to provide supplemental appropriations for additional funds for the operation of the city government for fiscal year 1992. (#33 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
(A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 6/4/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 41; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Speck and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson left meeting
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:ORDINANCE NO. 3577
AN ORDINANCE making provision for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and for the payment of municipal expenditures and providing supplemental appropriations to the several funds of amounts required to defray certain expenditures and liabilities of the municipal corporation for fiscal year 1992, which began on the first day of July 1991 and ends on the thirtieth day of June 1992.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the Council of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, does hereby make provision for and appropriate to the fund hereafter named the amounts hereafter stated that are required to defray certain expenditures and liabilities of the city for fiscal year 1992, the source of such amount being external grant awards for which revenues were authorized and adjusted after July 1, 1991, but not appropriated by council and, further, that the council does hereby allot the amount so appropriated to the several city departments for fiscal year 1992, as follows:
35
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ESTIMATED REVENUE:
Affirmative Action/Human Rights/
Office on Women $ 624
Sheriff 8,400
Transportation & Environmental Services 22,059
Fire 1,830
Mental Health/Mental Retardation/
Substance Abuse 220,573
Health -1,684
Human Services 272,653
Historic Alexandria 121,812
Schools 142,976
Total Estimated Revenue $789,243
APPROPRIATION:
Affirmative Action/Human Rights/
Office on Women $ 624
Sheriff 8,400
Transportation & Environmental Services 22,059
Fire 1,830
Mental Health/Mental Retardation/
Substance Abuse 220,573
Health -1,684
Human Services 272,653
Historic Alexandria 121,812
Schools 142,976
Total Appropriation $789,243
Section 2. That the Council of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, does hereby make provision for and appropriate to the fund hereafter named the amount hereafter stated that is required to defray certain expenditures and liabilities of the city for fiscal year 1992, the source of such amount being donations whose revenues have been accepted and adjusted but not appropriated in fiscal year 1992 and, further, that the council does hereby allot the amount so appropriated to the several city departments for fiscal year 1992, as follows:
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
ESTIMATED REVENUE:
Health $ 20,000
Historic Alexandria 2,368
Library 2,255
Total Estimated Revenue $ 24,623
APPROPRIATION:
Health $ 20,000
Historic Alexandria 2,368
Library 2,255
Total Appropriation $ 24,623
36
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
42. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to make appropriations for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, for fiscal year 1993. (#34 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson left meeting
Rich left meeting
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:ORDINANCE NO. 3578
AN ORDINANCE making provision for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, for the payment of interest and principal of the city debt, and for other municipal expenditures, expenses and purposes, for the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That, pursuant to section 6.07 of the city charter, the sum of $279,199,670 be and it hereby is appropriated for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria in the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993.
Section 2. That, pursuant to section 6.07 of the city charter, the sum of $279,199,670 appropriated in section 1 of this ordinance for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria in the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993 be and it hereby is further appropriated to the following city departments, major operating units and major categories of expenditures in the amounts set forth below:
37
Department/Unit/Category of Expenditure Appropriation
City Council $ 388,302
City Manager 650,133
Citizens Assistance 495,419
Affirmative Action/Human Rights/
Office on Women 1,065,429
18th Circuit Court 340,425
18th General District Court 74,000
18th Juvenile Court 24,413
Commonwealth Attorney 1,594,451
Sheriff 12,610,244
Clerk of Courts 1,145,063
Law Library 116,069
Other Correctional and Judicial 1,574,591
Court Services Unit 371,931
Financial and Management
Information Services 8,470,986
City Clerk and Clerk of Council 182,941
Personnel 1,284,238
Planning and Community Development 2,005,633
City Attorney 988,660
Registrar of Voters 465,888
General Services 7,458,982
Transportation and Environmental Services 17,552,740
Transit Subsidies 5,800,655
Fire 17,744,997
Police 24,298,696
Office of Housing 2,610,685
Mental Health/Mental Retardation/
Substance Abuse $ 14,068,876
Health 4,789,461
Human Services 18,586,247
Human Services Contributions 920,981
Office of Historic Alexandria 2,654,206
Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities 9,960,432
Library 3,428,335
Schools 85,073,559
Other Educational Activities 13,870
Internal Service 2,169,133
Contingent Reserves 1,283,663
General Debt Service 13,640,181
Non-Departmental 6,392,015
Capital Projects Transfers Out 6,903,140
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $279,199,670
Section 3. That, pursuant to section 6.07 of the city charter, the sum of $279,199,670 appropriated in section 1 of this ordinance for the support of the City of Alexandria in the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993 be and it hereby is further appropriated to the following principal objects of city expenditures:
Object of Expenditures Appropriation
Personnel Services $105,229,837
Non-Personnel Services 70,014,311
Capital Outlay 1,797,698
Library 3,428,335
Schools 85,073,559
Alexandria Transit Company Fund 3,373,700
Pilot Recycling Program 1,209,957
Equipment Replacement 2,169,133
Capital Projects Transfers Out 6,903,140
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $279,199,670
38
Section 4. That the sum of $279,199,670 appropriated in section 1 of this ordinance for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria in the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993 is estimated to be derived from the following sources of revenue:
Source of Revenue Amount
General Property Taxes $142,715,000
Other Local Taxes 49,273,000
Permits, Fees and Licenses 847,000
Fines and Forfeitures 2,759,000
Intergovernmental Revenue 50,491,728
Charges for Services $15,558,260
Revenue from Use of Money and Property 5,693,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 732,480
Sale of Land 192,000
Budgeted Unreserved Fund Balance 10,938,202
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $279,199,670
Section 5. That, pursuant to section 6.14 of the city charter, the sum of $11,590,264 be and it hereby is appropriated for capital improvement project expenditures of the City of Alexandria in the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993. This sum includes $6,903,140 appropriated as Capital Projects Transfers Out in section 2 of this ordinance.
Section 6. That the sum of $11,590,264 appropriated in section 5 of this ordinance for capital improvement project expenditures of the City of Alexandria in the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993 is estimated to be derived from the following sources of revenue:
Source of Revenue Amount
Unallocated Capital Projects $4,592,588
Unappropriated Cash Resulting from
Bond Proceeds 94,536
Capital Projects Transfers In 6,903,140
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $ 11,590,264
Section 7. That the sum of $279,199,670 appropriated in section 1 of this ordinance for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria in, together with the $4,687,124 in unallocated capital projects and bond proceeds revenue appropriated in section 5 for and referenced in section 6 in conjunction with capital improvement project expenditures in, the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993 is, for accounting purposes and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, attributed, for each city department, major operating unit and major category of expenditure, to the following funds types maintained by the city, as set forth below:
39
Section 7.40
Section 8. That the sum of $279,199,670 appropriated in section 1 of this ordinance for the support of the government of the City of Alexandria in, together with the $4,687,124 in unallocated capital projects and bond proceeds revenue appropriated in section 5 for and referenced in section 6 in conjunction with capital improvement project expenditures in, the fiscal year beginning on the first day of July 1992 and ending on the thirtieth day of June 1993 is, for accounting purposes and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, attributed, for each major source of revenue, to the following funds maintained by the city, as set forth below:
Section 9. That the sum of $88,294,001 be and it hereby is authorized to be transferred between the following funds maintained by the city, as set forth below:
From Amount To Amount
General Fund $12,938,669 Special Revenue Fund-General $12,938,669
General Fund 66,393,492 Special Revenue Fund-Schools 66,393,492
General Fund 6,903,140 Capital Project Fund 6,903,140
General Fund 2,058,700 Alexandria Transit Co. Fund 2,058,700
TOTALS $88,294,001 $88,294,001
Section 10. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the timeof its final passage.
PATRICIA S. TICER
Mayor
Intorduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
41
43. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to increase the cigarette tax levied by the city from 15 to 20 cents a pack. (#35 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson left meeting
Rich left meeting
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:ORDINANCE NO. 3579
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 3-2-102 (LEVY AND RATE) of Article I (TAX ON SALE OF CIGARETTES), Chapter 2 (TAXATION), Title 3 (FINANCE, TAXATION AND PROCUREMENT) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Section 3-2-102 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 3-2-102 Levy and rate.
In addition to all other taxes of every kind now or hereinafter imposed by law, there is hereby levied and imposed by the city, upon every person who sells or uses cigarettes within the city, an excise tax equivalent to 20 cents for each package containing 20 cigarettes and 10 mills for each cigarette contained in packages of fewer or more than 20 cigarettes sold or used within the city. The tax shall be paid and collected in the manner and at the time hereinafter prescribed; provided, that the tax payable for each cigarette or cigarette package sold or used within the city shall be paid but once. The tax hereby levied shall not apply to free distribution of sample cigarettes in packages containing five or fewer cigarettes.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 1992.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
42
44. (a) Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to grant a non-exclusive franchise to the Virginia Electric and Power Company, a Virginia corporation doing business as Virginia Power, authorizing the company to use the city's streets, alleys and other rights-of-way for the purpose of transmitting and distributing electric power within the boundaries of the City of Alexandria. (#31(b) 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
(A copy of a letter from the Ad Hoc Citizens Committee for the Study of Public Utility Franchises dated 6/12/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item Nos. 44 (a) and (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
(Robert J. Webster, 304 S. Lee Street, spoke in support of the ordinance as well as the operating agreement; and
Mike Molloy, 7907 Sir Topas Drive, Warrenton, VA, representing Virginia Power, was available to answer questions.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Vice Mayor Cleveland and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Jackson left meeting
Cleveland "aye" Pepper "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3580
AN ORDINANCE to grant to the Virginia Electric and Power Company, a Virginia corporation doing business as Virginia Power, its successors and assigns, the right, for the term and upon the conditions hereinafter stated, to locate, construct, install, improve, maintain, repair and use, and if now constructed to maintain, repair and use, poles, towers, wires, conductors, cables, conduits, lines, subways, duct banks, manholes, handholes, and other equipment and appliances in, over, along, on and under the public streets, public alleys and other public places of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, for the purpose of distributing, transmitting and selling electric current for light, heat and power at any point within the corporate limits of the City of Alexandria, as such limits now exist or may hereafter be extended or altered.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 3567, enacted April 28, 1992, city council invited bids for the privilege and right to distribute and transmit electric power in, over, along, on and under public streets, public alleys and other public places within the City of Alexandria, in the manner and under the conditions set forth in the proposed electric power franchise ordinance that was contained within Ordinance No. 3567, and authorized the city clerk to cause advertisements of such invitation to be published for four successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation within the City of Alexandria;
WHEREAS, in the four successive weeks following April 28, 1992, the city clerk caused such advertisements to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Alexandria;
43
WHEREAS, the Virginia Electric and Power Company submitted a bid in writing for the privilege and right set forth in Ordinance No. 3567, which was delivered to city council in open session and was read aloud on May 26, 1992, the deadline for the submission of bids as set by city council on April 28, 1992;
WHEREAS, no other bids for the privilege and right set forth in Ordinance No. 3567 were submitted to city council on or before May 26, 1992;
WHEREAS, city council, after due investigation and consideration, has determined to award the privilege and right set forth in Ordinance No. 3567;
WHEREAS, city council, after due investigation and consideration, has determined that acceptance of the bid submitted by, and the awarding of privilege and right set forth in Ordinance No. 3567 to, the Virginia Electric and Power Company are in the best interests of the residents of the City of Alexandria, and has therefore accepted the company's bid; and
WHEREAS, city council has determined that the name of the Virginia Electric and Power Company should be inserted in the proposed franchise ordinance that was contained within ordinance No. 3567; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the right is hereby granted unto the Virginia Electric and Power Company, a Virginia corporation doing business as Virginia Power, and its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Grantee"), for the term and subject to the provisions, terms, conditions and limitations hereinafter stated in this franchise ordinance, to locate, construct, install, improve, maintain, repair and use, and if now constructed to maintain, repair and use, poles, towers, wires, cables, conduits, lines, subways, duct banks, manholes, handholes, and other equipment and appliances (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Facilities") in, over, along, on and under the public streets, public alleys and other public places of the City of Alexandria, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the "City") for the purpose of distributing, transmitting and selling electric current for light, heat and power at any point within the corporate limits of the City, as such limits now exist or may hereafter be extended or altered; provided, that this right shall extend only to such areas of the City as are now or may hereafter be allotted to the Grantee for service under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the State Corporation Commission or successor agency in accordance with all applicable law.
Section 2. That, subject to the provisions, terms, conditions and limitations stated in this franchise ordinance, and subject to the lawful exercise of the police power of the City, Grantee shall have the right to maintain, repair and use the Facilities which, as of the effective date of this ordinance, are being maintained and used, and those additional Facilities which, after the effective date of this ordinance, are placed, constructed or installed in over, along, on or under the public streets, public alleys and other public places of the City for the purposes set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance.
44
Section 3. That from and after the effective date of this franchise ordinance:
(a) The Facilities in, over, along, on and under the public streets, public alleys and other public places of the City that are authorized by this franchise ordinance, whether in existence on the effective date of this ordinance or thereafter coming into existence, shall be at locations approved by the City that are reasonably suitable and convenient for the purposes of the Grantee and of the City, subject to the terms, provisions, conditions and limitations stated in this ordinance and, in addition, to the lawful exercise of the police power of the City and to the National Electric Safety Code. Except where approval is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission, the City's review and approval of the location of any Facilities shall be undertaken by the proper authorized administrative officer of the City, with the right on the part of the Grantee to appeal from the officer's decision to the City Council of Alexandria, and the decision of the Council on any such appeal shall be final and binding as to the location of the Facilities.
(b) If and when requested by the proper administrative officer of the City, and in any event from time to time, the Grantee shall file with the City plans showing the location of any Facilities which the Grantee proposes to place, construct or install in the City. In addition, Grantee shall obtain any and all permits required by the City or other governmental entities prior to the placement, construction or installation of any Facilities in, over, along, on and under the any public street, public alley or other public place of the City.
(c) Whenever the City determines that Facilities of the Grantee which are located in, over, on and under any public street, public alley or other public place of the City should be removed or relocated, either in connection with the construction, repair, relocation or improvement of a street, alley or public place, or pursuant to the lawful exercise of the police or another valid power of the City, Grantee shall, within a reasonable time after being requested by the City in writing, remove or relocate the Facilities, using construction techniques acceptable to the City, to such place as shall be mutually agreeable to the City and Grantee. Grantee shall bear all costs of any removal and relocation described in this subsection; provided, that the City shall make a good faith effort to obtain or cause to be obtained, without charge to Grantee, any permits that may be required for the removal or relocation to occur. If Grantee does not commence and complete removal or relocation within a reasonable time after the City's written notice, the City may, after giving at least sixty (60) days written notice to Grantee, take such actions, at Grantee's sole expense, as are necessary to effect the removal or relocation. In the event the City effects the removal or relocation of any Facilities pursuant to this subsection, the City shall not be liable to the Grantee for any damages incurred by Grantee that result from such removal or relocation. In addition, in the event the City effects the removal or relocation of any Facilities pursuant to this subsection, Grantee shall indemnify the City for, and hold the City harmless from, any and all losses, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs and expenses arising from or based upon the claims of third parties who allege personal injury, property damage or other loss caused, in whole or in part, by the removal or relocation; provided, that Grantee shall not be required to indemnify and hold the City harmless to the extent that the loss incurred by a third party is caused by the City's negligence.45
Section 4. That Grantee shall not place, construct or install, or move, alter or change the location of, any Facilities in, over, along, on or under any public street, public alley or other public place of the City, or dig in, cut or disturb any public street, public alley or other public place of the City, unless prior written notice of its intention to do so is given to such department or agency of the City as shall have been or may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council of Alexandria and permission in writing to do so has been granted to Grantee by such department or agency, which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, that, in cases of emergency and in cases where the requirement for notice and permission has been waived by such department or agency, no notice need be given and no permission need be obtained. Any permission provided pursuant to this section shall be conditioned upon Grantee's compliance with the provisions, terms, conditions, and limitations of this franchise ordinance and with such other provisions, terms, conditions, and limitations which, the City determines, will preserve, protect or promote the safety of the public using the streets, alleys and other public places of the City, or will prevent interference with or obstruction of the use of streets, alleys and other public places by the City, by the public or by another public utility or public service corporation for their respective purposes and functions, or will preserve, protect or promote the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its citizens.
Section 5. That, in placing, constructing, installing, improving, maintaining, repairing and using Facilities, as authorized by this franchise ordinance, Grantee shall avoid all unnecessary damage to the trees in and along the public streets, public alleys and other public places of the City, and shall not cut or otherwise injure said trees to any greater extent than is reasonably necessary in the placement, construction, installation, improvement, maintenance, repair and use of the Facilities.
Section 6. That, in the event Grantee shall, in the course of placing, constructing, installing, improving, maintaining, repairing or using any Facilities, damage or cause damage to any pavement, sidewalk, sewer, water or other pipe or works of the City, or other property of the City, Grantee shall, upon notice thereof from the City, promptly repair or replace the same at its own cost and expense. In the event Grantee has not initiated the repair or replacement work identified in a notice provided by the City under this section within sixty (60) days of the date of the notice, the City may undertake the repair or replacement work, and Grantee shall thereafter reimburse the City for any and all costs incurred by the City in performing the work. In the event the City undertakes repair or replacement work pursuant to this section, the City shall not be liable to the Grantee for any damages incurred by Grantee that result from such work. In addition, in the event the City undertakes repair or replacement work pursuant to this section, the Grantee shall indemnify the City for, and hold the City harmless from, any and all losses, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs and expenses arising from or based upon the claims of third parties who allege personal injury, property damage or other loss caused, in whole or in part, by the work; provided, that Grantee shall not be required to indemnify and hold the City harmless to the extent that the loss incurred by a third party is caused by the City's negligence.
46
Section 7. That Grantee shall, when so requested by the City Council of Alexandria, continue to permit or permit, as the case may be, its Facilities to be used, without compensation, by the City for the purpose of placing thereon or therein any traffic control wire or equipment, any fire or police alarm wire or equipment, and any other wire or equipment (other than telegraph or telephone wire or equipment) which is or may be necessary for the exclusive use of the police or fire department of the City; provided, that such use of Grantee's Facilities by the City shall not interfere with the proper use of the Facilities by the Grantee, and that the location and character of the wires and equipment to be used by the City shall be subject to the approval of the Grantee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided further, that the City shall indemnify and hold Grantee harmless from any and all losses, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs and expenses arising from or based upon the claims of third parties who allege personal injury, property damage or other loss caused, in whole or in part, by the City's use of Facilities pursuant to this section except that the City shall not be required to indemnify the Grantee for losses, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs or expenses arising from a third party's personal injury, property damage or other loss which has been caused, in whole or in part, by the Grantee's own negligence in placing, constructing, installing, improving, maintaining or repairing the Facilities used by the City pursuant to this section.
Section 8. That nothing contained in this franchise ordinance shall be construed to exempt the Grantee from any tax, levy or assessment which is now or which may hereafter be authorized by law.
Section 9. That Grantee shall indemnify the City for, and shall hold the City harmless from, any and all losses, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs or expenses arising from or based upon the claims of third parties who allege personal injury, property damage or other loss caused, in whole or in part, by the presence, location, construction, installation, improvement, maintenance, repair, removal, relocation or use by Grantee of any Facilities; provided, that Grantee shall not be required to indemnify and hold the City harmless for losses, damages, judgments, liabilities, costs or expenses arising from a third party's personal injury, property damage or other loss which has been caused by the City's negligence.
Section 10. In the event that suit is brought against the City, including any of its officers, agents or employees, by a third party seeking compensation or other relief on account of any injury, damage or other loss described in Section 3, 6 or 9 of this franchise ordinance, whether or not suit is also brought against Grantee or one or more of its officers, agents or employees, Grantee shall, upon written notice to it by the City, defend the City and all of its officers, agents and employees named in such suit, at the sole cost of Grantee and, in the event a final judgment is entered against the City and/or any named officer, agent or employee of the City, whether independently or jointly with any other individual or entity, including Grantee, Grantee shall pay the entire judgment, including any award of expenses and attorneys' fees included therein, and all costs, and shall hold the City and all of its named officers, agents and employees harmless from the judgment and costs; provided, that Grantee shall not be required to defend, or pay a judgment entered against, any City official, agent or employee who, when performing or failing to perform the actions alleged in the suit, was not acting within the scope of his employment or agency with the City; provided further, that, if a suit is brought against the City, its officers, agents and/or employees alleging negligence on the City's or their part, Grantee
47
shall not be required to defend the City or the named officers, agents and employees or pay any judgment that is entered against the City or any such individuals based on a finding of negligence on the part of the City or one or more City officers, agents and/or employees; and provided further, that if, in a suit alleging negligence on the part of the City or one or more of its officers, agents or employees, no judgment is entered against the City or any officer, agent and or employee, and no settlement is reached pursuant to which the City agrees to provide compensation to the plaintiff, grantee shall reimburse the City for the reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses it incurs in defending the suit.
Section 11. That the rights and privileges set forth in this franchise ordinance are granted and conferred upon Grantee upon the express condition, and with and upon the understanding of Grantee, that, at all times during the term of this ordinance, Grantee shall render to the public within the portion of the City it serves efficient and adequate electric service at reasonable rates, and it shall place, construct, install, improve, maintain, repair and use its Facilities within the City in a safe manner and condition and in good order. In addition, Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the State Corporation Commission and any successor agency shall have jurisdiction during the term of this ordinance, to the full extent and in the manner now or hereafter provided by law, to issue regulations requiring, or otherwise to require, Grantee to render efficient and adequate electric service at reasonable rates, to place, construct, install, improve, maintain, repair and use its Facilities in a safe manner and condition and in good order, and otherwise to enforce the provisions of this section to the full extent provided by law, and Grantee hereby agrees to comply with any and all such requirements of the State Corporation Commission. However, nothing in this franchise ordinance shall be construed as precluding the City from enforcing the provisions of this section to the full extent authorized by law.
Section 12. That the City and Grantee shall take all reasonable actions to ensure that any person who intentionally destroys or damages any of Grantee's Facilities within the City, constructed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this franchise ordinance, shall be diligently prosecuted pursuant to any and all applicable provisions of the Virginia Code. The City and Grantee shall also take all reasonable actions to ensure that any person who tampers with any metering device on or incident to any of Grantee's Facilities, or who otherwise intentionally prevents such metering device from properly registering, or who illegally diverts electric service so that it does not pass through such metering device, shall be diligently prosecuted pursuant to any and all applicable provisions of the Virginia Code.
Section 13. That, subject to and with the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, all rights and privileges granted to Grantee in this franchise ordinance may be exercised by any successor or successors to, or assignee or assignees of, Grantee, and said successor, successors, assignee or assignees shall be subject to all of the provisions, terms, conditions, limitations, obligations, stipulations and penalties stated in this ordinance.
Section 14. That the rights and privileges granted to Grantee in this franchise ordinance shall continue for the period of thirty (30) years from and after the effective date of this ordinance, unless the rights and privileges so granted shall be sooner voluntarily surrendered by Grantee, with the consent of the City Council of Alexandria, or unless the rights and privileged shall be sooner terminated or forfeited as provided by this ordinance, by any other agreement between the City and Grantee, or by law.
48
Section 15. That upon the expiration of the 30-year term of this franchise ordinance or upon the earlier termination of the rights and privileges granted to Grantee by this ordinance by surrender or forfeiture or otherwise, all of the Facilities of Grantee then in the public streets, public alleys and public places of the City shall remain the property of Grantee and may be removed from the streets, alleys and public places of the City, at the sole expense of Grantee, within a reasonable time, set by the City Council of Alexandria and Grantee, after the expiration or termination of the Grantee's rights and privileges under this ordinance; provided, that Grantee shall remove from the streets, alleys and public places of the City any Facilities which the City, within one (1) year of the expiration or termination of Grantee's rights and privileges and in a written notice to Grantee, identifies for removal, and shall, at the sole cost of Grantee and within a reasonable time set by the City Manager or her designee, repair, restore or replace any street, alley or other public place, any sewer or water equipment or facility, any electric, fire alarm, police communication or traffic control wire, equipment or facility, any other City property, and any tree or any part thereof, which may be damaged, disturbed or destroyed, directly or indirectly, by the removal of any Facilities, in a manner and with such materials approved by, and to the satisfaction of, the City Manager or her designee. The provisions of Sections 3(c), 9 and 10 of this franchise ordinance shall apply to and govern the removal of Facilities by Grantee from the streets, alleys or public places of the City following the expiration or termination of its rights and privileges under this ordinance and the subsequent repair, restoration and replacement of public places, wires, equipment and facilities, and other public property, and shall also apply to and govern any request, made by the City pursuant to this section, that Grantee remove Facilities from the streets, alleys and public places of the City and undertake the repair, restoration and replacement of public places, wires, equipment and facilities, and other public property made necessary by the removal of Facilities.
Section 16. That this franchise ordinance and the rights and privileges that are granted and conferred by it shall not become effective unless and until Grantee has filed with the City Clerk its written acceptance of the ordinance, in a form satisfactory to the City, as evidenced by a certification provided by the City Attorney, and has entered into and filed with the City Clerk a bond in the sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000), with surety satisfactory to the City, which provides assurances that Grantee will place, construct, install, improve, maintain, repair and use any and all Facilities that are reasonably necessary for the exercise of the rights and privileges granted and conferred by this ordinance in the manner required by this ordinance, that Grantee will maintain and repair the same in good and safe condition and order throughout the term of this ordinance, and that Grantee will comply with the provisions, terms, conditions, limitations and obligations of this ordinance in all respects, and which further provides that, if Grantee fails to comply with any of these assurances, the City shall be entitled, at its sole discretion, to draw funds from the surety, in an amount identified by the City at its sole discretion, which will enable the City to undertake the action or actions that Grantee has failed to perform or otherwise to remedy the Grantee's failure to perform.
Section 17. That this franchise ordinance and the rights and privileges granted to Grantee by this ordinance to use the public streets, public alleys and other public places in the City are not exclusive, and nothing herein shall be construed to prevent a grant by the City of a similar franchise and similar rights and privileges to other persons.49
Section 18. That this franchise ordinance and its grant of rights and privileges to Grantee to use the public streets, public alleys and other public places in the City are not intended to abridge, and shall not be construed as abridging, the lawful exercise by the City of its police power. In addition, this franchise ordinance and the rights and privileges it grants to Grantee shall be subject to all ordinances and resolutions of the City Council of Alexandria and to all provisions of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, currently in effect or amended subsequent to the enactment of this ordinance, and to all City ordinances and resolutions and all Virginia Code provisions adopted subsequent to the enactment of this ordinance, as long as such ordinances and resolutions are adopted in the lawful exercise of the police power or any other power possessed by the City or the Virginia General Assembly, as the case may be.
Section 19. That this franchise ordinance shall become effective upon July 1, 1992.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
(A copy of the $250,000 bond submitted by Mr. Molloy on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company together with Virginia Power's acceptance letter dated 6/29/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked collectively as Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 44 (a); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.) [The original bond is on file in the department of Transportation and Environmental Services.]
44. (b) Public Hearing and Consideration of the Agreement between Virginia Electric Power Company and the City of Alexandria. (#31(c) 6/9/92) (RETAINED ITEM)
(A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 5/28/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 2 of Item No. 44 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.
A copy of an executed copy of the Operating Agreement is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 3 of Item No. of Item No. 44 (b); 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
(The City Attorney extended the City's appreciation and his appreciation to Mike Molloy and Jerry Norris from Virginia Power for their cooperation in this process.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilman Speck and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council approved the Franchise Agreement and authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement and the Agreement shall be dated on page 1, June 13, 1992, and on page 15 the effective date of this Agreement shall be July 1, 1992. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich left meeting
50
45. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to amend various provisions of the city code which impose erosion and sediment controls. (#36 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
(A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 6/5/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 45; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded simultaneously by Councilwoman Pepper and Councilman Speck and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Ticer "aye"
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Speck "aye" Jackson left meeting
Rich left meeting
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:ORDINANCE NO. 3581
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 5-4-5 (EXCEPTIONS), Section 5-4-7 (MINIMUM CRITERIA; CITY HANDBOOK) and Section 5-4-11 (INSPECTIONS AND AMENDMENTS OF PLANS), and to repeal Section 5-4-20.1 (INCORPORATION OF REGULATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD), all of Chapter 4 (EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL), Title 5 (TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Section 5-4-5 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 5-4-5 Exceptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any construction, reconstruction, repair or alteration of any building or structure when no land is disturbed and no trees, shrubs, grass or vegetation is destroyed or removed, nor to any of the following:
(a) The construction or erection of any building or structure when the disturbed land area of the site is less than 2,500 square feet in size, provided there is no natural or man-made drainage ditch, swale draining in excess of 2,500 square feet, or storm sewer on the disturbed land and no existing or proposed grade on the disturbed land exceeds 10 percent.
(b) The alteration of any building or structure when the disturbed land area of the site will be less than 2,500 square feet, provided there is no natural or man-made drainage ditch, swale draining in excess of 2,500 square feet, or storm sewer on the disturbed land and no existing or proposed grade on the disturbed land exceeds 10 percent.
(c) The clearing, grading, excavating, filling or changing the contour of, or removing topsoil from, less than 2,500 square feet of land, provided there is no natural or man-made drainage ditch, swale draining in excess of 2,500 square feet, or storm sewer on the disturbed land and no existing or proposed grade on the disturbed land exceeds 10 percent.
51
(d) The clearing, grading, excavating, filling or changing the contour of, or removing topsoil from, less than 500 square feet of land, provided there is no natural or man-made drainage ditch, swale, draining in excess of 2,500 square feet or storm sewer on the disturbed land, and further provided the disturbance of the land does not cause sedimentation on land outside the exterior boundaries of the land disturbed.
(e) The removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, grass, weeds, vegetation, ground cover, or other plant life which cover less than 2,500 square feet of land, provided there is no natural or man-made drainage ditch, swale draining in excess of 2,500 square feet, or storm sewer on the disturbed land and no existing or proposed grade on the disturbed land exceeds 10 percent.
(f) The planting, trimming, pruning or removal of trees, shrubs, grass, weeds, vegetation, ground cover or other plant life pursuant to chapter 2 of title 6 of this code.
(g) The removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, grass, weeds, vegetation, ground cover or other plant life which is dead, poisonous or infected with disease or injurious insects or pests.
(h) The gardening and care of lawns.
(i) The removal or destruction of trees, shrubs, grass, weeds, vegetation, ground cover or other plant life from lots of less than 2,500 square feet on which there now exists a dwelling.
(j) The exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines and off-site disposal areas.
(k) The repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company.
(l) Shore erosion control projects on tidal waters when the projects are approved by local wetlands boards, the Marine Resources Commission or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(m) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided, that, if the land-disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan if the activity were not an emergency, the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority.
Section 2. That Section 5-4-7 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 5-4-7 Minimum criteria; city handbook.
(a) The director of the department of transportation and environmental services and/or his or her duly authorized representatives shall administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter. Use of the title "director" in this chapter shall be construed to mean the aforesaid director and/or authorized representatives(s).52
(b) The city council hereby adopts the following general criteria as the minimum requirements for controlling erosion and sedimentation for land-disturbing activities:
(1) Stabilization of denuded areas and soil stockpiles.
a. 1. Permanent or temporary soil stabilization must be applied to denuded areas within seven days after final grade is reached on any portion of the site. Soil stabilization must also be applied within seven days to denuded areas which may not be at final grade but will remain dormant (undisturbed) for longer than 30 days.
2. Soil stabilization refers to measures which protect soil from the erosive forces of raindrop impact and flowing water. Applicable practices include vegetative establishment, mulching and the early application of gravel base on areas to be paved. Soil stabilization measures should be selected to be appropriate for the time of year, site conditions and estimated duration of use.
b. During construction of the project, stockpiles shall be stabilized or protected with sediment measures to prevent soil loss. The applicant is responsible for the temporary protection and permanent stabilization of all stockpiles on the site, as well as for soil intentionally transported from the site.
(2) Establishment of permanent vegetation. A permanent vegetative cover shall be established on denuded areas not otherwise permanently stabilized. Permanent vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which, in the opinion of the director, is mature enough to control soil erosion satisfactorily and to survive severe weather conditions.
(3) Protection of adjacent properties.
a. Properties adjacent to the site of a land disturbance shall be protected from sediment deposition. This may be accomplished by preserving a well-vegetated buffer strip around the lower perimeter of the land disturbance, by installing perimeter controls such as sediment barriers, filters, dikes, sediment basins or by a combination of such measures.
b. Vegetated buffer strips may be used alone only where runoff in sheet flow is expected. Buffer strips should be at least 20 feet in width. If at any time it is found that a vegetated buffer strip alone is ineffective in stopping sediment movement onto adjacent property, additional perimeter controls must be provided.
(4) Timing and stabilization of sediment-trapping measures. Sediment basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers and other measures intended to trap sediment on-site must be constructed as a first step in grading and be made functional before upslope land disturbance takes place. Earthen structures such as dams, dikes and diversions must be seeded and mulched immediately after installation.
(5) Sediment basins. Stormwater runoff from drainage areas greater than or equal to three acres shall be controlled by a sediment basin. The sediment basin shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the anticipated sediment loading from the land-disturbing activity. The outfall device or system design shall take into account the total drainage area flowing through the disturbed area to be served by the basin. The director may require sediment basins or traps for smaller disturbed areas where deemed necessary. The sediment basin requirement may also be waived if the director agrees that site conditions do not warrant its construction.53
(6) Cut and fill slopes. Cut and fill slopes must be designed and constructed in a manner which will minimize erosion. Consideration must be given to the length and steepness of the slope, the soil type, upslope drainage area, groundwater conditions and other applicable factors. Slopes which are found to be eroding excessively within one year of construction must be provided with additional slope-stabilizing measures until the problem is corrected. The following guidelines are provided to aid site planners and plan reviewers in developing an adequate design.
a. Roughened soil surfaces are generally preferred to smooth surfaces on slopes.
b. Diversions should be constructed at the top of long, steep slopes which have significant drainage areas above the slope. Diversions or terraces may also be used to reduce slope length.
c. Concentrated stormwater should not be allowed to flow down cut or fill slopes unless contained within an adequate temporary or permanent channel, flume or slope drain structure.
d. Wherever a slope face crosses a water seepage plane which endangers the stability of the slope, adequate drainage or other protection should be provided.
(7) Stormwater management criteria for controlling off-site erosion. Properties and waterways downstream from development sites shall be protected from sediment deposition, erosion and damage due to increases in the volume, velocity and peak flow rate of stormwater runoff for the stated frequency storm of 24-hour duration in accordance with the following standards and criteria:
a. A stormwater management plan shall be developed so that, from the site, the postdevelopment peak runoff rate from a two year and a 10 year storm, considered individually, shall not exceed their respective predevelopment rates. The predevelopment and postdevelopment peak runoff rates must be verified by engineering calculations. Within the Four Mile Run Watershed, postdevelopment peak runoff during a 100 year frequency storm shall not increase the peak runoff of the Four Mile Run Flood Control Channel as required by the city's contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
b. 1. Concentrated stormwater runoff leaving a development site must be discharged directly into a well-defined, natural or man-made, off-site receiving channel or pipe. If these is no well-defined, off-site receiving channel or pipe, one must be constructed to convey stormwater to the nearest adequate channel. Newly constructed channels and conduits carrying a flow of 1,000 or more cubic feet per second shall be designed for a 100 year storm frequency and newly constructed channels and conduits carrying a flow of less than 1,000 cubic feet per second shall be designed for a 10 year storm frequency.
2. An "adequate channel" shall be defined as a natural or man-made channel or pipe which is capable of conveying the runoff from a two year storm or a 10 year storm, considered individually, without overtopping its banks or eroding after development of the site in question. A receiving channel may also be considered adequate at any point where the total contributing drainage area is at least 100 times greater that the drainage area of the development site in question or, where it can be shown that the peak rate of runoff from the site for a two year and a 10 year storm, considered individually, will not be increased after development.
54
3. Runoff rate and channel adequacy must be verified with engineering calculations to the satisfaction of the director. Natural channels shall be analyzed by the use of a two year frequency storm to verify that stormwater will not overtop channel banks or cause erosion of channel beds or banks. All previously constructed man-made channels shall be analyzed by the use of the 10 year frequency storm to verify that stormwater will not overtop its banks, and by the use of the two year storm to demonstrate that stormwater will not cause erosion of channel beds or banks. Pipes and sewer systems shall be analyzed by the use of a 10 year frequency storm to verify that stormwater will be contained within the pipe or system.
C. If an existing off-site receiving channel is not an adequate channel, the applicant must choose one of the following options:
1. Obtain permission from downstream property owners to improve the receiving channel to an adequate condition. Such improvement shall extend downstream until an adequate channel section is reached.
2. Improve the channels to a condition where a 10 year frequency storm will not overtop the banks or cause erosion to the channel bed or banks; or
3. Improve the pipe or pipe system to a condition where the 10 year frequency storm is contained within the appurtenances; or
4. Provide a combination of channel improvement, stormwater detention or other measures which are satisfactory to the director to prevent downstream channel erosion.
d. All channel improvements or modifications must comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Modifications to flowing streams should be made in accordance with Best Management Practices Handbook--Hydrologic Modifications, Virginia State Water Control Board Planning Bulletin 319, 1979.
e. If the applicant chooses an option which includes stormwater detention, he must provide the city with a plan for maintenance of the detention facilities. The plan shall set forth the maintenance requirements of the facility and the party responsible for performing the maintenance. The responsible party may be an individual, organization or the city, whichever has consented to carry out the maintenance. If the designated maintenance responsibility is with an individual or organization other than the city, a maintenance agreement should be executed between the responsible party and the city.
f. The owner or developer may continue to discharge stormwater that has not been concentrated (sheet flow) onto lower-lying property if:
1. the peak flow rate for a 10 year storm after development does not exceed the predevelopment peak flow rate;
2. the increase in total volumes of runoff caused by the development will not have an adverse impact on the lower-lying property; and
3. there will be no exacerbation of existing drainage problems on the lower-lying or other downhill property.
g. In applying these stormwater management criteria, individual lots in subdivision developments shall not be considered separate development projects, but rather the subdivision development, as a whole, shall be considered a single development project.55
(8) Stabilization of waterways and outlets. All on-site stormwater conveyance channels shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity of flow from a 10 year frequency storm without erosion. Stabilization adequate to prevent erosion must also be provided at the outlets of all pipes and paved channels. Energy dissipators shall be installed as required by the director.
(9) Storm sewer inlet protection. All storm sewer inlets which are made operable during construction shall be protected so that sediment-laden waste will not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or otherwise treated to remove sediment.
(10) Working in or crossing watercourses.
a. Construction vehicles should be kept out of watercourses to the extent possible. Where in-channel work is necessary, precautions must be taken to stabilize the work area during construction to minimize erosion. The channel (including bed and banks) must always be restabilized immediately after in-channel work is completed.
b. Where a live (wet) watercourse must be crossed by construction vehicles regularly during construction, or more than twice in any six-month period, a temporary stream crossing must be provided.
(11) Underground utility construction.
a. Underground utility lines shall be installed in accordance with the following standards in addition to other applicable criteria:
1. No more than 100 feet of trench are to be opened at one time.
2. Excavated material is to be placed on the uphill side of trenches.
3. Trench dewatering devices shall discharge in a manner which will not adversely affect flowing streams, drainage systems or off-site property. Effluent from dewatering operations shall be filtered or passed through an approved sediment-trapping device, or both, and discharged in a manner that does not adversely affect flowing streams or off-site property.
4. Restabilization shall be accomplished in accordance with these regulations.
5. Applicable safety regulations shall be complied with.
(12) Construction access routes. Wherever construction vehicle access routes intersect paved pubic roads, provisions must be made to eliminate the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicle tracking onto the paved surface. Where sediment is transported onto a public road surface, the roads shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Sediment shall be removed from roads by shoveling or sweeping and be transported to a sediment controlled disposal area. Street washing shall be allowed only after sediment is removed in this manner. This provision shall apply to individual subdivision lots as well as to larger land-disturbing activity.56
(13) Disposition of temporary measures. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be disposed of within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary measures are no longer needed, unless otherwise authorized by the director. Trapped sediment and other disturbed soil areas resulting from the disposition of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized to prevent further erosion and sedimentation.
(14) Maintenance. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function.
(c) The "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Second Edition, 1980" and the tree planting and preservation regulations hereinafter promulgated by the city manager which are concurrent with this ordinance shall be used by any applicant making a submittal under this chapter and by the director in his or her review and consideration of the adequacy of any erosion and sediment control plan submitted.
(d) This chapter and the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Second Edition, 1980" shall be an integral part of the city's erosion and sediment control program and shall comprise the city's "Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook." The erosion and sediment control regulations of the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board, effective September 13, 1990, and as subsequently amended, are incorporated herein by reference. The text of these regulations is on file in the office of the director.
Section 3. That Section 5-4-11 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 5-4-11 Inspections and amendments of plans.
(a) The plan-approving authority or, where a grading, building or other permit is issued in connection with land-disturbing activities, the permit-issuing authority, shall provide for periodic inspections of the authorized land-disturbing activity or activities and may, in addition, require monitoring and reports from the person responsible for carrying out the approved plan to ensure compliance with the plan and to enable the authority to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sediment. The owner, occupier or operator shall be given an opportunity to accompany an inspector during an inspection. If the plan-approving or permit-issuing authority determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan, notice shall be served upon the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the site of the land-disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities. Where the plan-approving authority serves such a notice, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the permit-issuing authority. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. In cases where the director determines that immediate compliance is required to preclude damage to state waters or lower-lying property or drainage systems, the director may issue a stop-work order. Upon failure to comply with such measures within the time specified, the permit may be revoked, and the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 5-4-18.57
(b) The director may authorize amendments to an approved plan when he has determined that an inadequacy exists or that the plan cannot be carried out effectively because of changed circumstances.
Section 4. That Section 5-4-20.1 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is repealed.
Section 5. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
46. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to reincorporate into the city code various traffic control provisions in the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (#37 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3582
AN ORDINANCE to adopt and incorporate into Title 10 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, all amendments made by the 1992 Virginia General Assembly to sections in Titles 18.2 and 46.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which are incorporated by reference into Title 10 of the city code.
WHEREAS, the 1992 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended certain sections of Titles 18.2 and 46.2 of the Virginia Code which are incorporated by reference into Title 10 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended; and
58
WHEREAS, city council wishes to adopt and incorporate by reference into Title 10 of the city code all such amendments to Titles 18.2 and 46.2 of the Virginia Code; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That all amendments made by the Virginia General Assembly during its 1992 session to sections in Titles 18.2 and 46.2 of the Virginia Code which are incorporated by reference into Title 10 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, are hereby adopted, and the incorporation of each such section into Title 10 of the city code shall be deemed an incorporation of the section as amended by the 1992 General Assembly.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 1992.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
47. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to impose a penalty and interest whenever any person owing fees or charges to the city fails to make timely payment of the amount due. (#38 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
(A copy of the City Attorney's memorandum dated 6/4/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 47; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:59
ORDINANCE NO. 3583
AN ORDINANCE to add a new Section 1-1-9 (DELINQUENT FEES AND CHARGES; PENALTY AND INTEREST) to Chapter 1 (USE AND INTRODUCTION), of Title 1 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Chapter 1, Title 1 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be amended by adding a new Section 1-1-9 to read as follows:
Sec. 1-1-9 Delinquent fees and charges; penalty and interest.
Unless otherwise provided by this code or by general law, whenever a fee or charge is imposed for services rendered by the city and all or any part of the fee or charge remains unpaid for more than 30 days from the date of the city's original billing, there shall be imposed a penalty of 10 percent of the unpaid amount or $10, whichever is greater, and, in addition, interest of eight percent per annum shall be charged on the unpaid amount, and on any unpaid penalty and accrued interest, until the entire amount owed is paid to the city; provided, that the city's billing provides notice that failure to make timely payment of the fee or charge being billed will result in the imposition of penalty and interest charges; and, provided further, that where the amount unpaid for more than 30 days is less than $10, the penalty may not exceed said unpaid amount.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
48. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to amend section 5-8-24 of the city code to increase the charge for the storage of impounded motor vehicles from $10.00 to $20.00 per day. (#39 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
(A copy of the City Manager's memorandum dated 5/26/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 48; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Pepper "aye"
Rich left meeting
60
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3584
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 5-8-24 (REPOSSESSION OF IMPOUNDED VEHICLES;TOWING AND STORAGE CHARGES) of Article C (DISPOSITION OF ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES), Chapter 8 (PARKING AND TRAFFIC REGULATIONS), Title 5 (TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES) of the Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Section 5-8-24 of the Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 5-8-24 Reppossession of impounded vehicles; towing and storage charges.
(a) The owner of any vehicle impounded under this article or other duly authorized person shall be permitted to repossess the vehicle up to the time of sale by:
(1) payment of the towing charge;
(2) payment of storage charge at the rate of $20.00 per day;
(3) posting appropriate collateral for his appearance in the courts of the city to answer for the traffic violation;
(4) payment of cost of sale; and
(5) the payment of costs and charges of investigation.
(b) The payment of charges shall not operate to relieve the owner or agent from liability for any fine or penalty.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
49. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to grant an encroachment into the public right-of-way for a canopy on the property located at 480 King Street. (#41 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that James Graham, 305 S. Royal Street, was present earlier to speak on this item.
61
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Speck, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Speck "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Donley "aye"
Ticer "aye" Jackson left meeting
Rich left meeting
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:ORDINANCE NO. 3585
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the owner of 480 King Street, and the owner's successors in title, to establish and maintain an encroachment into the public right-of-way at 480 King Street, (Old Town Holiday Inn), in the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
WHEREAS, Gadsby Associates Limited Partnership II is the owner of the property located at 480 King Street in the City of Alexandria, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Gadsby Associates Limited Partnership II desires to establish and maintain an entrance canopy consisting of a tubular frame covered by a canvas awning, measuring approximately 10 feet six inches in width and 15 feet six inches in length, and erected to a height of seven feet, which will encroach into the public sidewalk right-of-way at 480 King Street; and
WHEREAS, the public right-of-way at that point at 480 King Street will not be significantly impaired by this encroachment; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Council of the City of Alexandria that this encroachment is not detrimental to the public interest; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Gadsby Associates Limited Partnership II and its successors in title (hereinafter collectively the "Owner") be, and the same hereby are, authorized to establish and maintain an encroachment into the right-of-way of the public sidewalk at 480 King Street in the City of Alexandria, said encroachment consisting of an entrance canopy constructed of a tubular frame covered by a canvas awning, measuring an estimated 10 feet six inches in width and 15 feet six inches in length, and erected to a height of seven feet, until the encroachment is removed or destroyed or the authorization to maintain it is terminated by the city; provided, that this authorization to establish and maintain the encroachment shall not be construed to relieve Owner of liability for any negligence on its part on account of or in connection with the encroachment and shall be subject to the provisions set forth below.
Section 2. That the authorization hereby granted to establish and maintain said encroachment shall be subject to and conditioned upon Owner maintaining, at all times and at its own expense, liability insurance, covering both bodily injury and property damage, with a company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth of Virginia and with minimum limits as follows:
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
62
This liability insurance policy shall identify the City of Alexandria and Owner as named insureds and shall provide for the indemnification of the City of Alexandria and Owner against any and all loss occasioned by the establishment, construction, placement, existence, use or maintenance of the encroachment. Evidence of the policy and any renewal thereof shall be filed with the city attorney's office. Any other provision herein to the contrary notwithstanding, in the event this policy of insurance lapses, is canceled, is not renewed or otherwise ceases to be in force and effect, the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain the encroachment shall, at the option of the city, forthwith and without notice or demand by the city, terminate. In that event, Owner shall, upon notice from the city, remove the encroachment from the public right-of-way, or the city, at its option, may remove the encroachment at the expense and risk of Owner. Nothing in this section shall relieve Owner of its obligations and undertakings required under this ordinance.
Section 3. That the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain said encroachment shall be subject to and conditioned upon the director of the department of transportation and environmental services granting approval to the location at which Owner's entrance canopy, including all support poles, are placed on the public sidewalk right-of-way.
Section 4. That by accepting the authorization hereby granted to establish and maintain the encroachment and by so establishing and/or maintaining the encroachment, Owner shall be deemed to have promised and agreed to save harmless the City of Alexandria from any and all liability (including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses) arising by reason of the establishment, construction, placement, existence, use or maintenance of the encroachment.
Section 5. That the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain the encroachment shall be subject to Owner's maintaining the area of the encroachment at all times unobstructed and free from accumulation of litter, snow, ice and other potentially dangerous matter.
Section 6. That nothing in this ordinance is intended to constitute, or shall be deemed to be, a waiver of sovereign immunity by or on behalf of the City of Alexandria or any of its officers or employees.
Section 7. That Owner shall timely pay to the City of Alexandria for the encroachment authorized herein the annual charge established in section 3-2-85 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, 1981, as amended.
Section 8. That the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain the encroachment shall be terminated whenever the City of Alexandria desires to use the affected public right-of-way for any purpose whatsoever and, by written notification, demands from Owner the removal of the encroachment. Said removal shall be completed by the date specified in the notice and shall be accomplished by Owner without cost to the city. If Owner cannot be found, or shall fail or neglect to remove the encroachment within the time specified, the city shall have the right to remove the encroachment, at the expense of Owner, and shall not be liable to Owner for any loss or damage to the structure of the encroachment caused by the removal.
63
Section 9. That this ordinance shall be effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
50. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to grant an encroachment into the public right-of-way for the construction of a sign and sign wall located at 1799 Duke Street on the north side of Duke Street at Diagonal Road. (#42 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
(Jonathan Rak, 510 King Street, #200, attorney representing the applicant, was present to answer questions.
General Discussion. Mr. Leiberg, of Planning and Community Development, stated that the ordinance needed to be amended in paragraph 3, line 5 , "17 feet five inches in length by one foot" should read, "35 feet six inches in length by two feet", and the same wording in paragraph 5, line 12.)
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading, as amended, as suggested. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed as amended reads as follows:ORDINANCE NO. 3586
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the owner of 1799 Duke Street, and the owner's successors in title, to establish and maintain an encroachment into the public right-of-way at 1799 Duke Street, in the City of Alexandria, Virginia.
WHEREAS, King Street IV Associates, L.P., is the owner of the property located at 1799 Duke Street in the City of Alexandria, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, King Street IV Associates, L.P., desires to establish and maintain a brick and pre-cast concrete sign wall and sign panel measuring, respectively, approximately 50 feet in length and four feet to five feet six inches in height, and approximately 35 feet six inches in length by two feet in height, which will encroach into the public right-of-way at the intersection of Duke Street and Diagonal Road; and
WHEREAS, the public right-of-way at the intersection of Duke Street and Diagonal Road will not be significantly impaired by this encroachment; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Council of the City of Alexandria that this encroachment is not detrimental to the public interest; now, therefore,
64
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That King Street IV Associates, L.P., and its successors in title (hereinafter collectively the "Owner") be, and the same hereby are, authorized to establish and maintain an encroachment into the public right-of-way at the intersection of Diagonal Road and Duke Street, in the City of Alexandria, as shown on the plat, entitled "Encroachment Plat" and dated March 19, 1992, said encroachment consisting of a brick and pre-cast concrete sign wall and sign panel. The brick and pre-cast concrete sign wall authorized by this ordinance may run approximately 50 feet in length and stand four feet to five feet six inches in height. The sign panel attached to the wall and authorized by this ordinance may run approximately 35 feet six inches in length and stand two feet in height. Said sign wall and sign panel may continue to encroach into the public right-of-way, until the encroachment is removed or destroyed or the authorization to maintain it is terminated by the city; provided, that this authorization to establish and maintain the encroachment shall not be construed to relieve Owner of liability for any negligence on its part on account of or in connection with the encroachment and shall be subject to the provisions set forth below.
Section 2. That the authorization hereby granted to establish and maintain said encroachment shall be subject to and conditioned upon Owner maintaining, at all times and at its own expense, liability insurance, covering both bodily injury and property damage, with a company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth of Virginia and with minimum limits as follows:
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
This liability insurance policy shall identify the City of Alexandria and Owner as named insureds and shall provide for the indemnification of the City of Alexandria and Owner against any and all loss occasioned by the establishment, construction, placement, existence, use or maintenance of the encroachment. Evidence of the policy and any renewal thereof shall be filed with the city attorney's office. Any other provision herein to the contrary notwithstanding, in the event this policy of insurance lapses, is canceled, is not renewed or otherwise ceases to be in force and effect, the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain the encroachment shall, at the option of the city, forthwith and without notice or demand by the city, terminate. In that event, Owner shall, upon notice from the city, remove the encroachment from the public right-of-way, or the city, at its option, may remove the encroachment at the expense and risk of Owner. Nothing in this section shall relieve Owner of its obligations and undertakings required under this ordinance.
Section 3. That by accepting the authorization hereby granted to establish and maintain the encroachment and by so establishing and/or maintaining the encroachment, Owner shall be deemed to have promised and agreed to save harmless the City of Alexandria from any and all liability (including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses) arising by reason of the establishment, construction, placement, existence, use or maintenance of the encroachment.
Section 4. That the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain the encroachment shall be subject to Owner's maintaining the area of the encroachment at all times unobstructed and free from accumulation of litter, snow, ice and other potentially dangerous matter.
65
Section 5. That nothing in this ordinance is intended to constitute, or shall be deemed to be, a waiver of sovereign immunity by or on behalf of the City of Alexandria or any of its officers or employees.
Section 6. That Owner shall timely pay to the City of Alexandria for the encroachment authorized herein the annual charge established in section 3-2-85 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, 1981, as amended.
Section 7. That the authorization herein granted to establish and maintain the encroachment shall be terminated whenever the City of Alexandria desires to use the affected public right-of-way for any purpose whatsoever and, by written notification, demands from Owner the removal of the encroachment. Said removal shall be completed by the date specified in the notice and shall be accomplished by Owner without cost to the city. If Owner cannot be found, or shall fail or neglect to remove the encroachment within the time specified, the city shall have the right to remove the encroachment, at the expense of Owner, and shall not be liable to Owner for any loss or damage to the structure of the encroachment caused by the removal.
Section 8. That this ordinance shall be effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Attachment: Plat
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
66
Plat
67
51. Public Hearing. Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to revise the city code provisions governing waivers from the code's utility undergrounding requirements. (#43
6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
(A copy of the City Attorney's memorandum dated 6/4/92, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and Clerk of Council, marked Exhibit No. 1 of Item No. 51; 6/13/92, and is incorporated herewith as part of this record by reference.)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilwoman Pepper, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-to-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Pepper "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3587
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 5-3-4 (VARIANCE OR WAIVER OF PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE) of Chapter 3 (UNDERGROUND UTILITIES), Title 5 (TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, 1981, as amended.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Section 5-3-4 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, 1981, as amended, be and the same shall hereby be amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 5-3-4 Variance or waiver of provisions of article.
(a) The director of transportation and environmental services may waive one or more of the requirements of this article pertaining to new or expanded overhead customer utility services, provided that the director makes the following findings with respect to the customer utility service to which the waiver pertains:
(i) that the person seeking the waiver has submitted a written application on a form provided by the director;
(ii) that the person seeking the waiver has paid an application fee of $100;
(iii) that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a. the city arborist has determined that the new or expanded customer utility service, if placed underground, would endanger an existing mature tree by damaging its root system;
b. the new or expanded customer utility service, if placed overhead, would not be visible from a public street or any other public right-of-way;
c. the new or expanded overhead customer utility service, if placed underground, would significantly interfere with one or more existing city or private underground utilities;
68
d. if the waiver were granted, there would be a reduction in the total number of overhead customer utility service lines serving the applicant's property;
e. if the waiver were granted, the length of the overhead customer utility service to the applicant's property would be less than the length of the service in existence at the time the application is made.
(b) The director may waive one or more of the requirements of this article pertaining to new or relocated overhead transmission and distribution facilities, provided that the person seeking the waiver submits a written application on a form provided by the director, that said person pays an application fee of $100, and that the director finds that, under the circumstances presented by the application, the general welfare of the city would not be furthered by compliance with the requirements as to which the waiver is sought.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of subsections (a) and (b) to the contrary, the director may waive one or more requirements of this article pertaining to new or expanded overhead customer utility services and to new or relocated overhead transmission and distribution facilities, provided that the director finds that the new, extended or relocated service or facility is required to provide additional street lighting to suppress criminal activity and that the waiver is requested or supported by the director of the office of citizens' assistance or the chief of police.
(d) Any person whose application for a waiver under subsection (a) or (b) has been denied by the director may appeal the director's denial to the city council. Any such appeal must be filed with the city clerk, on a form provided by the clerk, within 30 days of the director's denial. City council shall conduct a public hearing on any such appeal. In deciding the appeal, council shall determine whether good cause exists to grant the requested waiver; provided, that, in making this determination, council shall, in conjunction with an appeal involving a customer utility service, consider the decision factors set out in subsection (a) (iii), and shall, in conjunction with an appeal involving a transmission or distribution facility, consider the decision factor set out in subsection (b).
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
69
52. Public Hearing, Second Reading and Final Passage of AN ORDINANCE to permit police officers assigned to the police department's bicycle patrol program to operate bicycles on City sidewalks, when necessary for operational or safety reasons. (#44 6/9/92; ROLL-CALL VOTE)
The City Clerk read the docket item.
It was noted that there were no speakers on this item; therefore, the public hearing was concluded.
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Vice Mayor Cleveland, seconded by Councilman Donley and carried on a ROLL-CALL vote of 5-0, City Council finally passed the ordinance upon its Second Reading. The voting was as follows:
Cleveland "aye" Jackson left meeting
Donley "aye" Pepper "aye"
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
The ordinance finally passed reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3588
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 10-7-4 (DESIGNATION OF SIDEWALKS AS BICYCLE ROUTES) of Chapter 7 (BICYCLES), Title 10 (MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
WHEREAS, city council has determined a bicycle patrol program will materially aid the Alexandria police department in its efforts to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alexandria; and
WHEREAS, the Alexandria police department has determined that officers assigned to the program will likely be required to operate their bicycles on sidewalks for operational and safety reasons; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Section 10-7-4 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended, be and the same hereby is amended and reordained to read as follows:
Sec. 10-7-4 Designation of sidewalks as bicycle routes.
With the exception of bicycles operated by police officers in the course of their law enforcement duties, no bicycle shall be operated on any sidewalk in city, except such sidewalks or portions thereof which the city council shall by resolution designate as bicycle routes.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
Introduction: 6/9/92
First Reading: 6/9/92
Publication: 6/11/92; 6/12/92
Public Hearing: 6/13/92
Second Reading: 6/13/92
Final Passage: 6/13/92
70
REPORTS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (continued)
CONSENT CALENDAR (continued) 53 - 60
53. TEXT AMENDMENT #92-09
Public Hearing and Consideration of possible text amendments to Title 7, Chapter 6 (Zoning), Article C, Section 7-6-41 of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, the nature of which would be to require a Special Use Permit for locating construction trailers and building material staging areas on lots other than the site of an active construction project. Staff: Planning and Community Development, Special Projects Division.
COMMISSION ACTION: Deferred by Staff Prior to Hearing
54. STUDY #92-02
Public Hearing and Consideration of a study of the public hearing notice requirements in Article P (Notices), Chapter 6 (Zoning), Title 7 (Planning and Development) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, for the purpose of determining the adequacy of the existing notice requirements, particularly the written notice, for development applications requiring public hearing before the City Council, Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Subdivision Committee or Board of Architectural Review. Staff: lanning and Community Development, Special Projects Division.
COMMISSION ACTION: Deferred by Staff Prior to Hearing
55. SUP #2597
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to allow the fee-simple townhouses in Parcels A and D-2 and the garden condominiums in Parcel D-1 of the Stonegate development to have "cluster type" frontage instead of fronting on a public street as required under Section 7-6-44(g) of the Alexandria Zoning Code. The property is located in the 4600 block of West Braddock Road, known as the "Stonegate Development," and contains 32.9 acres of lot area. The property is zoned RC Residential and C-2 and C-2-B (proffered) Commercial, with a requested rezoning to RC International/Holladay Corporation, Robert Youngentob, by Cyril D. Calley, attorney.
COMMISSION ACTION: Withdrawn by Staff Prior to Hearing
56. SUP #1923-A
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to change the ownership and amend the hours of operation of the restaurant located at 121 West Glebe Road; zoned C-2, Commercial. Applicant: Eugene McCant, t/a McDonald's.
COMMISSION ACTION: Deferred by Staff Prior to Hearing
Reason: Applicant failed to mail legal notice to owners.
71
57. SUP #2378-A
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit to offer outdoor seating, amend the hours of operation, and make alterations to the restaurant located at 1755 Duke Street; zoned C-3, Commercial. Applicant: Metropolis Limited Partnership, t/a Metropolis Restaurant, by David N. VonStorch.
COMMISSION ACTION: Deferred by Staff Prior to Hearing
Reason: Applicant failed to mail legal notice
to owners.
58. ENCROACHMENT #92-005
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for encroachment into the public sidewalk right-of-way for planter posts and chains for the property located at 510 King Street; zoned C-3, Commercial. Applicant:
JBG Properties, by Deborah Marten.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Deferral 6-0
Reason: Allow applicant time to address staff concerns.
59. ENCROACHMENT #92-006
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for encroachment into the public street right-of-way for a sign located at 5801 Duke Street, for the Landmark Shopping Center; zoned C-2, Commercial. Applicant: Dusco Property Management, Inc., for U.S. Prime Property, Inc., by Paul Hoffman.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Deferral 7-0
Reason:Applicant failed to attend hearing.
60. ENCROACHMENT #92-007
Public Hearing and Consideration of a request for encroachment into the public street right-of-way for a sign located at 5801 Duke Street, for the Landmark Shopping Center; zoned C-2, Commercial. Applicant: Dusco Property Management, Inc., for U.S. Prime Property, Inc., by Paul Hoffman.
COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend Deferral 7-0
eason:Applicant failed to attend hearing.
END OP CONSENT CALENDAR
WHEREUPON, upon motion by Councilman Donley, seconded by Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a vote of 5-to-0, City Council noted the deferrals and withdrawal. The voting was as follows:
Donley "aye" Cleveland "aye"
Pepper "aye" Jackson left meeting
Ticer "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
72
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED, uponmotion by Vice Mayor Cleveland, seconded simultaneously by Councilman Donley and Councilwoman Pepper and carried on a vote of 5-to-0, at 7:45 p.m., the Public Hearing Meeting of Saturday, June 13, 1992, was adjourned. The voting was as follows:
Cleveland "aye" Ticer "aye"
Donley "aye" Jackson left meeting
Pepper "aye" Rich left meeting
Speck "aye"
_____________________________
ATTEST:
________________________________
Beverly I. Jett, CMC City Clerk
73
This docket is subject to change.
* * * * *
Full-text copies of ordinances, resolutions, and agenda items are available in the Office of the City Clerk and Clerk of the Council.
* * * * *
Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the City Council meeting may call the City Clerk and Clerk of Council's Office at 838-4500 (TTY/TDD 838-5056). We request that you provide a 48-hour notice so that the proper arrangements may be made.
* * * * *