>>> council of the city ofnorfolk is now in session. please remaining standing forthe pledge of allegiance. appreciate it.>> dear heavenly father, thank you for this day and for yourmany displays of love through tangible and intangibleblessings too numerous to measure.bless the city of norfolk and every citizen who resides withinit's boundaries and every city employee who works to make ourcity great. father, bless our mayor, ourcity manager and this council as
we labor together in the callingof pluck service. give usã¡-- public service.give us the wisdom to govern fairly and ethically withequality, integrity, and compassion, and allow us torepresent our city in a spirit of excellence.i pray you will guide us through these difficult economic timesand give us the strength and wisdom we need to make thedecisions that face us. these and all other blessings weask in your son's name. amen.>> amen.
>> i pledge allegiance to theflag of the united states of america, and to the republic forwhich it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, withliberty and justice for all. >> thank you.thanks very much. clerk will call the roll,please. >> mr. burfoot.>> here. >> mr.ã¡protogyrou.>> here. >> mr.ã¡smigiel.>> here. >> dr.ã¡whibley.>> here.
>> ms. williams.>> here. >> mr.ã¡winn.>> here. >> mr.ã¡fraim.>> here. moex to excuse mr. riddickplease. >> mr. burfoot.>> aye. >> mr.ã¡protogyrou.>> aye. >> mr. smigiel.>> aye. >> dr. whibley.>> aye. >> ms.ã¡williams.>> aye.
>> mr. winn.>> aye. >> mr. fraim.>> aye. >> motion is to dispense withthe reading of the minutes of the previous meeting.mr. burfoot. >> aye.>> mr.ã¡protogyrou. >> aye.>> mr.ã¡smigiel. >> aye.>> dr.ã¡whibley. >> aye.>> ms. williams. >> aye.>> mr.ã¡winn.
>> aye.>> mr.ã¡fraim. >> aye.>> read the resolution of the closed meeting.>> a resolution certifying a closed meeting of the council ofthe city of norfolk held in accordance with the provisionsof the virginia freedom of information act.adopt the resolution. mr. burfoot.>> aye. >> mr. protogyrou.>> aye. >> ms. williams.>> aye.
good evening, ladies andgentlemen, and welcome to the norfolk city council chambers.thanks for coming out on this rainy night.story we're getting startedã¡-- sorry we're getting started alittle late, but i promise you we were doing the city'sbusiness down below before we stepped up here.for those of you who do not regularly attend our councilsessions, the process we'll follow is the first thing we dois take up the public hearings and i think there are three ofthose matters i'm sorry, there's
six and then we move to theconsent agenda, probably vote on all the consent agenda items atone time and then move to the regular agenda.we'll vote on all these matters in just the way they are numberon the printed docket. at the conclusion of the regularagenda, if any member of the public would like to address thecity council on a non-agenda item, something that's not onour printed docket, you will be given that opportunity and anumber of you have elected to do that.all you need to do to get your
name called is sign a slip ofpaper which the clerk has made available in the waiting roomoutside of the council chambers before the meeting began.so those are the rules. if there are no ceremonialmatters, so the first thing we're going to do is movedirectly to public hearing number one, please.>> public hearing scheduled this day pursuant to action of thecouncil on july 10, 2012, under the state law, on theapplication of the city planning commission to amend the generalplan and the zoning ordinance of
norfolk 1992, to createdefinitions for character districts within the city andshow their location. by 6-1 vote, planning commissionrecommends approval. >> the first thing we'd like todo, mr.ã¡manager, is to have a brief presentation by thedirector of planning, frank duke.frank, will tell you usã¡-- come up here for the benefit of thepublic and the council, how we got to are with we are, and howthe ordinance is drafted, please.>> yes, mr.ã¡mayor.
first let me stress that this isnot something that we've just come up with in the past fewmonths. this is an issue that councilasked us to look at several years ago.any city that has developed over time obviously has developedwith different patterns, different characteristics indifferent areas of that locality reflecting the prevalentdevelopment requirements at the time it was developed.and norfolk is no different from any other city in that regard.our current ordinances, however,
are all drafted as though thisis a suburban place. i believe mr. burfoot was theperson who asked me several years ago, can't you figure outa way to recognize that we have very urban parts of this cityinstead of continuing to regulate everything as part ofthe suburban place? and that's really what this isthe beginning step of. this is not a regulatory changewe're making at this time. this is a planning process thatwe're in right now. the regulatory processes willhave to come later.
i wish i could tell you this isgoing to be the end, the final vote on this.it is not. you're going to continue to seethis issue come up as we look at trying to revise some of ourordinances, particularly ordinances that council has saidyou want us to look at regarding parking and open space.but the first step is to define the boundaries because once wehave the boundaries defined, we then will be able to place thoseboundaries on the map to begin to set up that regulatory step.so the first step as planning
step.the ordinanceã¡-- you've two ordinances in front of youtonight. the first one is simply toapprove a general plan amendment that in general areas depictswhat should be or what weã¡-- the planning commission hasrecommended to you should be the boundaries for the characterdistricts . it is not defined as any legalboundaries, although that will have to be done as the next stepof this pr ses. but this is is a general image,the general map revision saying
these are the general areases ofour city that have the characteristics of downtown,these are generally places that were developed in the 19thcentury or earlier, places that are urban, which are largelythose places that were developed prior to the 1950s.they are largely the older neighborhoods of our city andplaces that are more suburban, the areas that have beendeveloped essentially in the last half of the 20th century.so the first thing is just do we have the boundaries right.the planning commission by a
vote of 6-1 has said these arethe correct boundaries. can you change those boundariestoday? absolutely.you just simply would have to tell us you would like to havethose boundaries changed, and we work with the city attorney'soffice to change the attachment or the exhibit to that ordinanceand we can make that happen. second part of this is purely adefinitions change, defining what is urban, what is suburban,and what is downtown. once we have this general mapplanning amendment taken care of
and we have these definitions inmace, we would then be bringing forwards to you the next ofthese ordinances, which we are working on, and that would dealwith parking changes, again reflecting the general characterof the areas of the city so that we do not try to apply one sizefits all across all of norfolk. >> okay.any other questions for mr.ã¡duke?>> frank, many people are confused that they don'tunderstand why we're doing the boundaries.we're not doing the boundaries
and the specifics of the parkingand green space at the same time.can you make that clear to them that this is not something we'reable to do? >> it's not something we can dobecause in order to begin refining those regulatorychanges, i've got to be able to have a legal definition of theareas where they would take effect.so we are going to have to create a legal definition.we've already begun working with the city attorney's office tocreate that legal definition,
looking at the boundaries thatthe planning commission has recommended.once we have these general boundaries, we can create thelegal descriptions so that we can then begin to create thoseregulatory changes and have them in front of you.>> if i may, i think what mr.ã¡duke means is a legaldescription of metes and bounds. the use of the map today islegal, but it's not metes and bounds.>> mr.ã¡pishko is correct. thank you, bernard.>> okay, frank.
stand by, we may want to ask yousome questions. >> i have one.>> sure. >> frank, i looked at thedropbox and i've got map upon map upon map.i can't figure outã¡-- and maybe it's justã¡-- i can't figure outwhich oneã¡-- there's one that says staff and i apologize, onesays cpc recommendation. another says administrationrecommendation. another one says staffrecommendation. another one saysã¡-- and thenthere's a different one.
frank, which one are weã¡-- whichone are you asking usã¡-- which is the 6-1 vote of planning?>> the planning commission recommendation is the map thatis shown on your attachments as cpc recommendation.and this is that map. the second map you have is thevote that the minority of the planning commission recommended,which included two properties that the majority of planningcommission did not recommend. >> all right.so i can get this right, cpc recommendation, and we'retalking about the properties on
the north side of brambletonwhere the hague medical building and it's the hague tower.>> yes, sir. >> and it's the red crossbuilding. >> and the red cross.>> that was not in the cpc recommendation, nor was that inthe minority recommendation. that is showing, when you seethe administration recommendation, and that isbecause after briefing council, you had asked do i have an easycategory where the red cross building could fit in and theanswer is no.
it is currently zoned as part ofdowntown, so it was the easiest way to keep them whole.what staff is recommending and what the administration isrecommending is the graphic that is relates to downtown of theurban areas that is shown as the administration recommendation.that is also consistent, you look at the attachment to theordinance with the graphic that is shown there, which iscitywide, because those other maps are simply blow-ups of thearea where there have been the greatest conversation and thegreatest contention.
>> mr.ã¡president, are theattachments to ordinances labeled cd 6 characterdistricts? i'm not sure i understand youranswer to dr. whibley, but the red cross is included downtownin the cd-6 characteristic district attachment.>> and we're voting on staff recommendation andadministrative recommendation. >> the administrationrecommendation is what we have in front of you, but yes, again,as i indicated, we have spoken to the attorney's office and youcan make modifications in this
map tonight and that then willbe the basis for the regulatory changes of the metes and boundslegal definition that we need for the regulatory changes.>> all right. so, again, you just said staffrecommendation is the one that we're voting on tonight.not cpc recommendation. >> that's correct.>> and the staff recommendation for the ordinance is labeledcd-6, characteristic districts, so this is one attachment to theordinance. the others were given to you forinformation and i'm not sure
they're shedding light on it.cd-6, characteristic districts, attached to the ordinance, andit has the boundaries that mr.ã¡duke just described.>> i'm going back toã¡-- >> this is a staffadministrationã¡-- staff and administration have labeleddowntown to include red cross, hague tower, and hague medical.and that's what we're voting and if we vote yes, then thosebecome in the downtown district. >> downtown.>> yes. >> okay.i'm sorryã¡--
>> the administrationrecommendations are the same then?>> i have cd-6 characteristic districts and it does show, so ican better understand what terri is saying, it does show that thehague medical building and the hague tower and theã¡-- itappears to be the red cross will be in the downtown district.frank, how would this affect, if we were to look at the areanorth of brambleton and to decide that we wished that areato be an arts district, a thriving arts district toconnect at some point the
chrysler and the opera house toscope and beyond. how does this, characterizing itas downtown, does that very effect if we were to decide todo that in our discussions at the retreat?>> as it relates to these three properties?>> yes. >> no, sir.the area we have looked at at trying to create this artsdistrict where it would be able to connect the opera house, thechrysler, scope, that's the area that there is a consensus fromall parties ought to be included
as downtown.>> okay. >> because what we need to do toenable this arts district is modify regulations to relaxparking, to relax the open space requirements, so that we canaccommodate kind of an arts district.>> higher density and make it more of a downtown and that'swhat everybody is seeing. >> yes.>> so it would have no effect on that.>> that is alreadyã¡-- that's the area that i think everyone hasagreed on should be part of
downtown.>> right. >> tommy, go ahead.>> frank i thought staff's recommendation was for the eastbeach area to be suburban, but on this one it's showingã¡-->> you're correct, that was our original recommendation was thatthe east beach area be suburban. i have indicated to severalcouncilmembers who have asked me that question my only personalbelief is it probably should still be suburban.that area has a plan that calls for it to become a very urbanplace, but it does not have
those characteristics today, andi think until we begin seeing the more mix of uses that theeast beach plan projects happening, it would be prematureto move that into the urban characteristic district.we did not dissent when planning commission wanted to move thatinto urban because weã¡-- the focus appeared to be at thattime on the downtown area, but i would still have greatreservations about putting east beach in the urbancharacteristic district at this time.i think it's premature.
>> the community has asked forthat to go back to sub barb ban for right nowã¡-- suburban forright now and councilman winn and i askedã¡-->> why don't we do this. why don't we listen to everybodyand then we'll start making motions because we may get someother feedback. >> i guess my question was, ithought staff had recommended suburban, but it's showing upurban still, so if you just went with planning, i understand nowwhy that's still showing up that way.>> the only area where we have
come up with a differentrecommendation was where there seemed to be a great deal ofcontention, but i'll tell you as i have indicated to othercouncil members, my personal belief as a planner is that areashould continue to be suburban. it exhibitsã¡-->> we can narrow the discussion. if everybody believes we oughtto pull itã¡-- >> i don't know anybody has aproblem with it. >> i don't.you want to make a motion? someone?>> i move that we change the
east beach area to suburban fromurban on the characteristic district recommendations.>> do you understand that? i mean, you got it?>> i've got it. >> okay, breck, you gotã¡-- okay.we don't need a second, but i meanã¡-- take your time.>> is there a vote on the motion?>> yes, are you prepared to vote on it?>> mr. burfoot. >> aye.>> mr. smigiel. >> aye.>> dr. whibley.
>> aye.>> ms.ã¡williams. >> aye.>> mr. winn. >> aye.>> mr. fraim. >> aye.okay. >> let me haveã¡-- the red crossbuilding was not in any of the discussions at the planningcommission level? is that what i'm hearing.>> that is correct. >> and it is zoned in thedowntown district already? >> yes, sir.>> and i guess the thoughts of
staff was that we ought toinclude that in theã¡-- it's already in there, so we're goingto include it in there. >> well, we have other areasthat are currently zoned downtown, the chrysler museum,for example, the harrison opera house.i have other zoning districts that should council want to havezoning in the future conform to these boundaries, i can put themin. i do not have another zoningdistrict that would accommodate the red cross building, thehague tower or the hague medical
center at this time.>> and the hague tower and hague medical are now in the downtown?>> that's what we're recommending to you.>> what are they? >> they are zoned downtown.>> characteristic districts, what are they zoned right now?>> both zoned as part of downtown, both have shown up inall of the downtown plans as far back as i can go.>> okay. >> and what about the red crossbuilding, that district in there?frank, you just want to leave it
the way it is for the timebeing? is that what you'rerecommending? >> that's my recommendation toyou, yes, sir. >> you say leave it the way itis, you're saying in the downtownã¡-->> that would be my recommendation to you, yes, sir.>> so if we were doing nothing, there were no characteristicdistricts, weren't trying to work for improve our city, tomake it more consistent, then the hague towers, hague medicaland red cross would beã¡-- fall
into the downtown situation?>> yes, sir. >> so if we change them topotentially something that would have a lesser use, we would be,i guess, downzoning is not the right word, but we would betaking away rights of people that own property.>> potentially, but i can't tell you that you would be doing thatuntil we actually have those regulations drafted and you'reactually dealing with them. at this point, because allyou're dealing with the plan amendment, you're not in thatprocess, the potential would
exist in the future and i thinkit would be heightened if they are included in the urban asopposed to the downtown characteristic district.>> when you say heightenedã¡-- >> there's a greater chance thatyou would at some point remove development rights from thoseproperties. >> okay, so if we weren't doinganything and somebody said they wanted to develop it and thishad never come up, it wouldn't be an issue, we'll wouldn't betalking about it, they could do what they could do within theirrights.
>> yes, sir.>> but the idea with characteristic districts isactually to change some of those and that's part of this.for instance, the north brambleton area, we're limitedso if we did no, we'd still be at the same zoning, which wouldbe sub sush ban for that area and we wouldn't be able to makethe necessary changes. you can go both ways on this.you have to get rid of the zoningã¡-- we're not talkingabout zoning right now. we're talking about makingcharacteristic districts, and
that's a different ball of waxhere. so it's true that if you lefteverything the same, then we'd have everything the same, butthat's not why we're here. >> so we are potentiallydamaging people's ability to do whatever that now exists.>> you're creating a framework right now and if you carry thatframework through, that potentially could happen, yes,sir. >> is that a defensible thing todo for the city? >> i'd have to defer to the cityattorney.
>> the only changes that areidentified right now with the characteristic districts is toreduce parking and open space, which would be positives fordevelopers. they could also do more than theminimum, they could do what is there today if we lowered it.that's all that we know right now and there are any number ofpossibilitieses that i couldn't identify, whether they could benegative, they could be positive as dr. whibley says, but the twoitems that have been identified would just be positives fordevelopers.
reduce parking and reduce openspace requirements. so the only two things that areknown to be coming to you. there could be others, butthey're not known. >> i thought nothing was comingto us now. >> nothing tonight, but the nextitems are going to be reduction of parking requirements andreduction of open space requirements.and there will be nothing passed without this council's approval.but the planning motivation right now is to deal withreducing parking requirements
and open space requirements.>> and mr.ã¡mayor, if i could elaborate on what mr.ã¡pishko hassaid, currently you have the authority to completely waiveparking and open space requirements or to substantiallyreduce them, so part of this is also to try to benefitneighborhoods and communities by creating certainty becausethrough those ordinance changes we're talking about bringingforward, we would be eliminating some of the ability to waiveordinanceã¡-- parking and open space and create a standard thateveryone could rely on.
>> but i'm hearing differentthings from you and bernard. i'm hearing the potential ispretty good that they wouldn't be able to do what they could dotoday tomorrow, and you are saying, no, they're going to beable to do more today than they were tomorrow.>> i think what mr.ã¡pishko is looking at is the issue thatyou've already told to us deal with and i would agree witheverything that he has said. but my concern is, you may wantto go and do something more down the road and because we aresupposed to be looking at the
general plan for guidance, i amconcerned about that potential at that point.>> okay. well, frank, stand by.we may have more questions for you because this is not veryclear. >> this has nothing to do withthe architecture. >> no, sir.>> of it and i think a lot of folk are caught up with, youknow, in terms of what you want to do with those particularproperties. and that's just not the issuethat's before us this evening.
>> i think potentially the shapeof the buildings isã¡-- >> but that gets into a wholeother conversation and there are still restrictions and thatwould have to be dealt with, again come back to planning tobe dealt with. one of the things thatã¡-- youcouldn't put a two-story building onã¡-- where the medicalfacility is because you don't have the parking, and, you know,this helps. where are you going to park, onthe other side of brambleton? i think there's some reasonableassurances in what we're doing
and i think that at the end ofthe day, i think the people think that we're biting theentire apple off tonight and we're not.and so, again, this is addressed to one part of it and i don'tthink thatã¡-- my personal opinionã¡-- that it hurtsanything. but i think it's necessary.>> so are you saying, anthony, that because of the parkingrequirements, the building in itself, if it were to beredesigned or something, could only be so high?or onlyã¡-- i mean, we don't only
do so much because of thelimited amount of parking? >> no, what i'm saying isdowntown you have certainã¡-- the parking requirements, whether itbe over by the alexander or whether it be downtown, what i'msaying is on thisã¡-- you have three pieces of property there.you have that medical property there, you have the hague towerand you have the red cross building.again, i would hope that as a council, you know, that, again,that we would set policy and restrictions, you know, for daysthat we're not here and i think
at the end of the day, we'rejust creating a blueprint, but i don't think that anyone on thiscouncil want to do anything to the detriment of downtown.i don't think, when you look at what you have, you don't want toexacerbate the problem of density in that corridor, and soi just think that you begin to define those properties, butwhen you start to get into an architecture discussion andsaying whether or not these buildingsã¡-- let's say the hagueburned to the ground, or like the young lady told me, asteroidhit it and destroyed it.
what type of development do youbuild or replace it with? is the architecture consistentwith downtown? and so you get into that, andwhat is the architecture? is it compatible to, you know,the surrounding areas? so i just don'tã¡-- i look at itand say you're starting to talk aboutã¡-- i've heard so manydiscussions and it centered around architecture and what youwould build there and what would it look like, but again, thishas nothing to do with architecture or buildings.i mean, it's beginning just to
framework and blueprint to beable to define the boundaries of downtown and within that, youcould begin to work within that framework.>> i could be wrong, frank, butã¡-->> frankã¡-- >> i would agreeã¡-->> but the architecture thing never really comes before us.>> no, it'sã¡-- >> but i would finish what mr.burfoot isã¡-- i would agree with him because really what you'relooking at if you maximize the restore plates that would beallowed to the hague medical
center site and you structuredparking, you would be looking at probably no more than a 10 to12-story building. it could go to a taller buildingyou had more open space because now you're reducing the overallfloor play, creating a smaller ff.a.r.floor area ratio. >> your recommendation that itbe in the downtown district is because you feel that it is moreappropriate there? >> yes, sir.>> okay. they're aboutã¡-- i think we have13 folks signed up to address
the council on this matter.as you know, the council still has some questions.we're going to ask mr.ã¡duke to come back and maybe if you havequestions, try to answer a couple, but we're here to listento you tonight for sure. all i ask is when i call yourname, if you come to the podium, identify yourself for the recordby giving us your full name and present home address and pleaselimit your remarks to three minutes.if you agree with somebody or you don't agree with somebody,please, you know, we'd like to
respect everybody's opinionshere, so keep yourã¡-- you know, keep the noise please to aminimum, if you could. ray king.>> good evening. my name is ray w. king.i'm an attorney with the firm of leclair ryan here in downtownnorfolk and i reside at 5608 shenandoah avenue in thelakewood sub division. i'm here to address you thisevening as the chair of the board of directors of thedowntown norfolk council on this issue, the downtown norfolkcouncil represents 325 members
in the downtown area whichinclude businesses, property owners, and people who reside inthe downtown area. specifically i'm here to expressthe downtown norfolk council's support for the proposedamendments to the community design chapter of the generalplan of norfolk to create the definitions for the threecharacteristic districts in norfolk.as you've already been talking about, the three proposedcharacteristic districts of downtown, urban, and suburban,downtown norfolk council is
particularly pleased to see thatthe proposed boundaries that you've been talking about forthe downtown characteristic district will include the granbydistrict north of brambleton avenue.we believe this is a critical part of the plan to help make itsuccessful. for many years, the zoning inthis area has been so restrictive and the parkingrequirements so stringent that compatible developmentsupportive of the division of an important city and developmenthas been difficult to achieve.
the opportunity provided by thecharacteristic district amendment will, we feel, allowappropriate and compatible development to occur in thisarea and will enhance the opportunity for the district'spotential to be finally realized in the city.the downtown norfolk councilã¡-- and there are several members ofthe council here tonight. i would ask those present toplease stand and be recognized. anyone supporting our position.the downtown norfolk council is supportive of the threeprivately owned properties on
brambleton avenue which you havebeen discussing to be included in the downtown district and notin the urban district. we feel that to maintain themaximum potential for these properties and in keeping withtheir current character, that they remain within the downtowndistrict. on the citywide basis, it is ourfeeling that the simplicity of the three character districtapproach brings far greater charity to the planning processand permits the city to move it's land use regulations insuch a way to encourage new and
compatible development withinthe city. we respectfully encourage you toadopt the proposal to amend the community design chapter in thegeneral plan of norfolk to create the definitions for thecharacter districts including the proposed boundaries as ihave discussed and i'm available to answer any questions you mayhave. thank you for your time andallowing me to speak tonight. >> thank you, mr.ã¡king.jack plumgren. >> good evening.i'm jack plumgren, president of
the ghent business association.i reside at 200 college place, but my business is located1611-b colley avenue in ghent and i'm here to speak againstthe proposed changes. just as background, a group ofindividuals, including people from downtown, got together,originally put together a plan that had those three buildingsnot in the downtown area, but actually had them in the urbanarea. that has changed subsequently.the negotiated deal that we had come up with fell through, and alot of it had to do with a
developer.having said that, you know, the purpose of the characterdistricts to me is to define the character of a neighborhood.irregardless of which property is on there now.i mean, what we're talking about is two buildings that areseparated by a foot bridge from some of the most extensive realestate in the city of norfolk. the hague and the area aroundthe hague. i don't think we have adequatepeople here to represent those people, but if that area becomesmore fully developed as
downtown, what will happen isthe parking will spill over into those neighborhoods.you'll be far more likely to park in though neighborhoodsthan to park across the natural barrier of a six-lane highwaylike brambleton avenue. i just feel like the characteritself of those areas belongs more in the urban setting thanit does in the downtown setting. the earlier speaker spoke abouthow restrictions were keeping it from being developed, but yetearlier, we heard that it was already zoned as downtown.so if it was restrictive, what
was restricting them if downtownwould make it less restrictive. this whole issue has gotten veryconfused. i've sat through threepresentations on this issue and every time i sat through thepresentations, they said it won't make any differencebecause he has this letter and it won't make any differencebecause if it's zoned this way or that way.it just seems to me there's a tremendous misunderstanding andi heard a lot of the discussion here this evening, but i'm hereto represent the ghent business
association and we unanimouslysupported the original agreement, which had the threebuildings in question as part of the urban zoning and the ghentbusiness association is also unanimousã¡-- the board hasunanimously voted to continue to support the original agreementand be in opposition to these changes.so thanks. >> thank you.bruce bishop. >> my name is bruce bishop.i reside at 1405 south voe loop in norfolk.i speak as a norfolk taxpayer
and as chairperson of thedowntown norfolk council's street level diversity taskforce. i endorse all the commentsincluded in ray king's presentation and his letter,which was sent on august 28th to members of the council and urgecouncil to approve the staff proposal to amend the communitydesign chapter of the general plan of norfolk to createdefinitions for character districts within the city ofnorfolk. i commend frank duke, who isincidentally an outstanding
planning director and his stafffor their hard work in defining this concept and shepherdingthis proposal through the planning process to council forits consideration. this proposal, in my opinion, aswin-win for the city, its residents as well as theexisting and new businesses that will eventually be drawn to thegranby district north of brambleton avenue as a result ofits passage and subsequent regulatory amendments.thanks have much for your time. >> greta gustavson.>> good evening.
my name is greta gustafson and ireside at 421 west duke street in norfolk.i've been a resident and property owner in the freemasonhistoric district for the past 35 years.i'm here tonight to really not either support or oppose theestablishment of character districts.i'm here to pose some issues that will need to be addressedif you choose to go forward with the establishment of characterdistricts in norfolk. i understand the process thatmust be followed.
however, it is extremelydifficult to support a change that could dramatically alterthe fabric of our urban neighborhoods.as many of you are aware, the boundaries of the freemasonhistoric district have been shrinking over the past tenyears, primarily because of changes in zoning from hcwf-1and hcwf-2 to d-3, which has allowed an increase in density,loss of open space, and the dreaded battle of parkingspaces. our neighborhood is locatedmidway between downtown and
ghent, and we reflect some ofboth of those areas, and had it not been for businessesrehabilitating some of our old homes, many more of our historicbuildings would have been lost through neglect or throughdemolition. while we strongly encouragereturning those structures to residential use, we respect thebusinesses that have been good stewards of their property, andinvolve them in our neighborhood activities and events as much aspossible. although i've been told bymr.ã¡duke that creation of
character districts andinclusion of the freemason neighborhood in the downtowncharacter district will not affect those portions of westfreemason covered by chapter 9 of our planning ordinance andthe historic district guidelines, i do not have thatassurance for the part of our neighborhood which is the bulkof our neighborhood now, that is zoned d-3.much of the neighborhood's d-3 zoning was established throughelimination of areas previously covered by hcwf-2 zoning.the d-3 zoning allows for
greater lot coverage, lessrestrictive height requirements, minimal parking requirements,fewer green and open spaces, and fewer restrictions related tobuilding design and materials. my overriding fear is thatinclusion in the downtown character district wouldincrease the likelihood of even further erosion of our historicdistrict. how will these issues beaddressed? nobody knows at this pointbecause we don't know the rules. as a former athlete and as aformer teacher, i would have
been a fool to play a game withrules that had not been developed and i would have beenremiss to test my students without first giving theminstruction. it is an equally difficult taskto consider a proposed action for zoning without expressedplanning. if you choose to move forward onthe establishment of character districts in norfolk, i stronglyurge you to insist upon readable written documents developed withneighborhood input and to critically review thosedocuments as they are presented
to you.>> thank you. >> i also urge you to listen tothe residents because we're the ones who have to live there.>> thank you. warren tisdale.>> good evening. my name the warren tisdale.my office is at 440 monticello avenue.i'm here representing the owner of the hague medical building.described in the august 24th council interest, a memorandumto city council, the three character districts, downtown,urban and suburban, reflect
different development charactersthat typified norfolk's development over time.the downtown character district reflect areas of city developedfirst with a broad range of higher intensity uses, limitedonsite parking and pedestrian and transit accessibility.also the zoning ordinance definition of downtown characterdistrict that city council is adopting today is as follows.the area of the city that historically included thecentral business district and those areas immediately adjacentto it in which high intensity
mixed use development isanticipated. that is the character districtdefinition that both historically and currently bestfits our parcel. brambleton avenue does not markthe historical boundary between downtown and the first suburbsof norfolk. brambleton avenue as we know itwas not constructed until the 1960s.what is now the hague originally was an inlet with two creeksstretching north well away from downtown.historically, the areas to the
south and east of the hague werepart of downtown and not part of ghent.and from a current compatibility standpoint, the development ofproperty between the hague and brambleton avenue, residentialhigh rise and office, is more in keeping with downtown thanresidential development in ghent.i think he reliance is important consideration.the property on which the hague medical building sits has beendowntown zoning district 4 sin the downtown zoning districtswere created and imposed by
adoption of the current zoningordinance in 1992. to my knowledge, all applicableland use studies and initiatives conducted or pons sword by thecity haveã¡-- sponsored by the city have considered theproperty south and east of the hague to be a part of downtown.to change that now penalizes those who relied on the zoningand it is not as if current zoning is lacking in protection.the current downtown district 4 zoning of our parcel confersultimate power over structures and uses within this district onthis city council.
downtown zoning districts arenot like other zoning districts. the city council controls whatcan be built and what uses can be pursued.certainly that level of control is sufficient comfort.in conclusion, we request that with regard to the hague medicalbuilding parcel, city council adopt the character district mapwhich from discussion i gather is the administrative staffproposal before you. it's the only sound approach atthis early stage in the overlay process before any overlaydevelopment standards have been
established.the sound approach is to impose character district boundariesthat match current zoning. thank you.>> page rose. thank you, warren.>> good evening. my name is page rose.i reside at 524 grayton avenue and i'm president of the ghentneighborhood league and i think to begin, we would all agreethat norfolk is comprised of distinct neighborhoods, eachwhich contributes its own vitality to our community andtreasured city scape.
these neighborhoods couldconceivably be divided into three distinct areas.we're not here tonight to discuss the merits of thecharacter districts, the boundaries and reasons for themand any potential reasons for carveouts.when the ghent neighborhood league learned of the proposedcharacter district amendment for the city of norfolk's generalplan, it began working collaboratively with nearbyneighborhoods and organizations to ensure boundaries relatedwell to each other between the
districts, were reasonably andserved unique neighborhoods well, especially as boundarieswould impact neighborhoods with subsequent zoning decisions,open space, parking and other potential areas.the impact details of which are still undetermined.it was agreed to have one of the major boundaries for the urbandistrict to run north of program tellton avenue, which is thelogical boundary between downtown freemason and ghentfrom an aesthetic, historical, and transportation perspective.despite the earlier
collaborative neighborhoodprocess to define the boundaries, it was subsequentlyrecommended by the city staff at the behest of a local developer,as we understand it, to carve out medical tower, hague towerand more recently the red cross building from the urban area andplace these buildings in the downtown designation.as explained to the gnl by the city, that a developer stands tolose potential income if this carve-out did not occur.when the information presented, it seems the developer coulddevelop the site properly under
the urban designation.this proposed carve-out is troubling on many fronts.ghent residents have voiced their opposition to thiscarve-out which brings downtown style development with less openspace and less parking requirements in addition toother potential downtown style development allowances into theghent neighborhood abutting the foot of the storied ghent bridgeand in plain view of many residents, especially thosehomeowners on the historic moebly arch area.this also brings many additional
parking issues which havealready been addressed. the carve-out would leaveyarmouth streels and the ghent district boxed in and mostneighborhood feel this is inappropriate regarding thecarve-out. as no one knows the final zoningimplications of implementing the carve-out, it seems impossibleto make such a decision in a prudent matter without thezoning information available. apt a recent gnl special meetingto discuss the situation, a straw poll was taken and theoverwhelming majority are
opposed to the carve-out fromthe urban to the downtown designation.thus, it was seem the voices of many residents should be heardover the voice of a developer. if the character districtamendment is approved, the ghent neighborhood league respectfullyasks the boundary between downtown and urban areas toremain at brambleton avenue as earlier recommended by theplanning commission and without the carve-out.this would help preserve and protect the ghent neighborhoodfor generations to come, for
current residents and also forthe developer to enjoy his right for a financial gain.many have asked what's the rush? and as we consider the decisionsfor boundary lines, the reasons for them and potentialcarve-outs without knowing the specific zoning information andthe realization this decision will affect all neighborhoods,especially those which co-exist in close proximity.thank you. >> thank you.mr.ã¡moss, cannon moss. >> hello.my name is cannon moss and i
live at 732 yarmouth street.i appreciate to opportunity to stand before the council anddiscuss my concerns. we met with city officials lastweek to get an overview of the districts and some of thereasoning behind by certainly areas are classed urban ordowntown. while we appreciate theopportunity to be briefed on what is going on, the meetingleft many of us with more questions than answers.from what i understand, the character districts boil down toparking and open space
requirements, which mattergreatly to my neighbors and me. i chose to buy my house in thedowntown area. while i like where i live, iunderstand with a great location comes some sacrifice and parkinghappens to be one of them. this is why i'm so sensitive tolosing what little parking we have.the parking on the street is extremely limited.we're surrounded today by the hague towers, the chrysler, crambelton avenue and duke street. once our street parking istaken, there are view for you
options for us.we understand the requirements for each of those districts havenot been outlined. if that's the case, how can youvote for the boundaries of the districts when the impact to thesurrounding neighborhoods is unknown?i look at the hague medical building and i think if thisgets developed into a downtown style high rise development,where are all the people going to park?i know there's no parking on brambleton, so that leaves thearch across the way.
i look at the red cross buildingand wonder if that becomes some sort of high rise with limitedparking requirements, what happens to me, where am i goingto park? i'm not standing here and sayingstop the progress. i'm asking you to consider thecitizens that live in these areas, not the developer.it might be unfairã¡-- excuse me, it might be unfair to thedeveloper as we were told in our meeting, but what about thesurrounding residents? did the developer who built thebrambleton apartments have to
fight for a parking spot at5:00ã¡p.m. because the ymca is busy?i doubt it. before you vote so thedistricts, i think it is very important to understand theimpact on the surrounding neighborhoods and there's no wayto nah that if the districts themselves are not defined.i look at historic yarmouth street with it's beautifulhistoric homes, surrounded by what?skyscrapers? you might think i'moverreacting, but that could
become a reality with thedevelopment of red cross building and adjacent open spacein i'm not asking you to stop progress.i just want to make sure that my fellow neighbors and i knowexactly how we will be affected and howã¡-- how we'll be affect.right now, you guys can't answer that.thank you. >> lee snyder.he didn'tã¡-- okay. thanks.bob bobreck? mr.ã¡bobreck?>> good evening.
my nape is bob bobbreck.i live at 414 marbury arch for about 18 years.don't buy an old house, by the way.live there, it's a great neighborhood.i tell you what, i had a go-around when i tried to put asatellite on my roof for satellite tv and now they said,oh, bob, they're putting a 10-story building on the hague.from what i can see, it's going to be maybe ten stories, eightstories, 12 stories, parking around there like cannon said ishard as it is now.
i'm totally against it, like togo on record about that, and it sounds, the confusion factorhere, i don't mean to say confusion.there's too many variables to make an intelligent decisionfrom what i can see right now. thank you.>> thank you. sharonã¡-- is it plevens?pam clapel? >> good evening.my name is pam clapel and i'm a property owner at 804 through814 granby street and i'm here to support the creation ofcharacter districts in norfolk's
general plan and for theresulting zoning changes where appropriate in these characterdistricts. my granby street property islocated between brambleton avenue and princess anne road inan area called north of brambleton.it is the weak link between two renovated and prospering areasof granby street. it's a two blocks with littlebuilding renovation and limbed enticement for new tenants.the parking ordinance here requires that the number ofparking place allocated to a
business be tied to the size ofthe building which houses the business.therefore, restaurants, bars, theaters, and other businesseswhich bring feet on the street do not consider the 7 and 800block of granby street. it's such a shame when this isso close to the harrison opera house and to the chryslermuseum. both of which are majorattractions in the city of norfolk.one of my tenants has considered creating a space for his bridalflower customers to have
weddings and receptions.the current zoning does not allow such innovation.the zoning is so restrictive north of brambleton thatattracting new tenants and maximizing the locationalopportunity has been almost impossible.i personally have had one building vacant for an entireyear. with the inclusion of the 800and 700 blocks of granby street in the downtown characterdistrict, parking requirements should become the same as southof brambleton.
this would bring consistency inparking regulations to the downtown improvement districtand encourage more businesses and tenants to consider lockingin these two blocks ofã¡-- locates in these two blocks ofgranby street. therefore, i ask you to pleasevote for inclusion of the three character districts in thegeneral plan as recommended to you by your city planningcommission. irene o'brien.>> thank you for allowing me to speak.my name is irene o'brien.
i live at 833 brandon avenue,which is right off of colley near blair middle school.i am a second vice president of the ghent neighborhood leagueand i'm also liaison to the ghent business association.i come here before you as not somebody who lives along thehague but is concerned about my community of ghent.i feel a lot like we're putting the cart before the horse notknowing what exactly or even just a general idea of what thefuture zoning will be for these areas.and i feel that right now, if we
maybe kind of left that areathat is north of brambleton, near the ghent area along thehague, out of the character district to be decided uponafterwards once zoning was figured out, that would be moreproductive for the character districts to move forward and,you know, resolve these controversial and unknownquestions. the area of north of brambletonnear ghent, i feel, has already hadã¡-- is already a greatdividing line. you know, a six-lane road is apretty good indicator, i think.
the area north of brambleton ongranby, though, that is an area that needs development and ithink it, you know, being characterized as put intodowntown is something that is very important, but not all ofit, you know, the area north of brambleton needs to be done.i do ask that, as far as parking, many people, you know,that's one of our biggest concerns.nobody is going to walk across six lanes of road to go park ina city parking lot near the y or any parking lot.they're going to go walk across
the foot bridge and park inpeople's neighborhoods and parking stickers in ourneighborhoods, while in downtown may be effective, they are noteffective in ghent, and by example is sentara.people, they have plenty of parking garages and probablyplenty of pa,ing for theirã¡-- parking for their employees andvisitors, but employees still park in the ghent area and it'shard for the city of norfolk, you know, parking, you know,people that watch or the police pay attention and monitor theseareas.
so, you know, lastly, i ask thatyou, you know, support the ghent neighborhood league and theghent business association in our opposition in allowing thisarea to be carved out and put into the downtown characterdistrict. thank you.>> tanya banks says she's opposed to theã¡-- i guess to theordinance the way it's drafted, doesn't wish to speak.unless you have somethingã¡-- charles snyder doesn't wish tospeak. he lists himself as an opponent.tom johnson is here to answer
questions if there are any.does anybody have any questions? okay.does any statements, any questions anybody want to make?>> i just wantã¡-- >> comments?okay. frank?>> maybe you can tell me, but what's the difference betweenurban and downtown? i mean, just in the generalsense, because urban usually consists of downtown.>> urban in the context in which we have described it includesneighborhoods in which uses
exist in proximity to oneanother, such as you find in ghent where you do have thecommercial areas that back up immediately to the residentialareas of the neighborhood. whereas downtown, you typicallyhave them more intermingled, where you have more of theresidential immediately above or even in freemason where you'vegot them directly next to one another.>> so we created our own definition?>> we have created our own definitions.what we looked at was the street
pattern, so you're look atsmaller blocks in your downtown area.they begin to get larger as you get outside of downtown into theurban areas. the mix of uses is different.building heights is different. downtown, you have very smalllots, yards whereas as you get into urban, they begin to becomea little more gracious. you get into suburban and you'regetting into the much bigger lots.>> okay. i was justã¡-- you know, i thinkwe had created our own
definition, but i mean urban,you knowã¡-- >> it was a challenge to try tofigure out how to word this. we did the best we could.>> okay. >> let me say a couple things.i think the big problem we have is that nobody knows what we'regoing to have. after we establish the district,i think, you're saying by law and then establish what goes inthe districts. the idea of exempting these,leaving these three properties in no man's land, is thatagainst the law, until we figure
out what's going on go indowntown and what's going on go in ghent and what impact thatmight have? >> legally, you're under noobligation to do this at all. >> i understand.and that's my next question. if we vote for this and it's inthe downtown district, then, you know, that's finished.if we vote against it, then character districts arefinished. >> yes, sir.>> so we're in a terrible position in my mind because whatall this work and all this staff
has gone through for months andyears, if it goes down because ghent wants one thing and getstheir way, which, you know, may happen, then we have nocharacter districts. so why can't we, if we make thelaw, exempt those three properties and put theã¡--everything else as you have it, find out exactly what you'regoing to put downtown, what the rules are going to be there,what the rules are going to be in urban, and then react tothose appropriately and then put those in the placeã¡-- so thatthere's not in uncertainty that
people have out there?the down side of that is they stay exactly like they're zonednow, so whatever by law they could do, they could do until wesettle this issue. >> but if you put them in thedowntown district, they stay exactly the way they are anyway.is thatã¡-- >> in terms of theã¡-->> we don't know. >> what we're talking about withregard to parking is that the downtown parking requirement onthe north side of brambleton would be consistent with therecommendations of the institute
for transportation engineers andthis outlined area which is roughly three-quartersã¡-- i'msorry, two-thirds of what would be required in suburban areas.and then you get into urban areas and it's roughly 80%.so that's the difference you're talking about.parking is the one thing where we have done research where ican tell you those are the standards that we've presentedto you before that would beã¡-- we'd be recommending with regardto parking. the challenge that you've got ifyou just leave these areas
exactly the way they are now,parking requirements is to be determined at the time you doã¡--deal with the approval of the individual project.there is no define standard. >> but we can do that until wehad something that everybody understood.>> but it would not allow us to make the progress that we'rehoping to make in the north brambleton area.the idea behind this character district was to give us theleverage to have the ability to bring in development in thenorth brambleton area and to
stop this constant, every time adevelopment comes to us, that we as council, because we're undersuburban rules right now, we waive the restrictions.it has inconsistency, it wastes people's time, it brings a greatdeal of confusion. the thing thatã¡-->> but there's nothing pending, there's nothing going to happenin the time i would hope we could get these rules set.>> but again, you can't get the rules set without theboundaries. but there is one thing, andfrank, correct me if i'm wrong,
because i've sat through a lotof these meetings and frank always presents to us what wouldbe essentially the requirements for green space in urban, therequirements in downtown, the requirements for parking.you will even tell us what the percentage difference is betweenthe two. so the impression that many haveleft or are left with, that these areã¡-- these arerestrictions that are just floating around with noframework at all, is incorrect. there are frameworks.they may not be voted on yet,
but there certainly are frameworks that we've all listened to, we've all talked about inthe meetings, so it really isn't as nebulous as many people say.i understand people that are saying how in the world can wevote on the rules when we don't know the rules?we actually do know the rules. we may not have it down to thefinite, but frank, am i correct on this?>> yes, ma'am. >> secondly, my frustration onthis, very frankly, and this is just because of the way i'mvoting, is i feel very strongly
about having characterdistricts. we need character districts, buti am frustrated that we can't vote on what our planningcommission's recommendations were, which was no carve-outs.it was character districts, because the way we've got itnow, it's either up or down. like barclay is saying, and thenyou throw the baby out with the bath water.and i understand there are many people that want to support thecarve-outs. it doesn't seem like we're giventhat option for a vote for each
of theã¡-- those possibilities.>> frank, tellã¡-- >> can i say, first of all, thisthing called the carve-out, i mean, you can call it acarve-out or a carve-in orã¡-- i mean, the original staffproposal, the original proposal as i understand it, when itoriginally went to the planning commission, wasã¡-- what was it?>> it was to include these properties in downtown.>> okay. >> as well as to includeã¡-->> it was to include the properties.>> yes.
>> it wasã¡-- when the communitydiscussion was had with ghent, that they moved, so it's notlike it's the folks who areã¡-- or theã¡-- that piece of properwas carved out. it sounds like we're creating aexception and what we've heard now for 40 years, that thetradition has been that they have had downtown standards.and so i mean, i think there's a misimpression being created hereby somehow theseã¡-- that this property is being treateddifferently. i mean, by its inclusion in thestaff recommendation.
and it's not.it's the way it's been treated since we've had a downtowndistrict and for the lastã¡-- since the 1960s.it is not a change, it is not, you know, a carve-out.it's not an exception, if you will.the exception would be to do something else.let meã¡-- would it help the council if we just sort ofclosed the public hearing and then tried toã¡-- you know, maybecame back and tried to deal with the issue in another meeting oranother discussion orã¡--
>> i've got one question to askfrank. frank, let me ask you aquestionã¡-- >> wait a minute.hold on. >> it's going to help me andtheã¡-- >> fly question?>> what you're asking me. >> all right.>> frank, if we did nothing and somebody wanted to bid on thatproperty tomorrow, okay? and this body had to vote, theycould actually get a variance, right?>> no, sir, they wouldn't be
able to get a variance becausethey still would have use of the property.they would have to come before you showing if they have adevelopment that would meet all the standards that have beenestablished in the ordinance or ask for waivers from you forthose standards that you can waive.>> so you would call it a waivers, you wouldn't call it avariance. >> by code they are calledwaiver, yes, sir. >> so basicallyã¡-- and so today,somebody could build a 12-story
high rise and if it was the willand consent of this council, they could do so.>> yes, sir. >> okay.>> they could do that presumably with no waivers.>> today? >> today.>> okay. with the character districts inplace, then what would the requirement be?>> the issue is that the parking standard would be fixed insteadof being something that a developer could come to you andsay we'd like to waive it.
you would have an open spacestandard that would be fixed instead of it being somethingthat the developer could come before you and say we want towaive it. >> so today, they could do itã¡-->> yes, sir. >> and tomorrow, if you wouldput the character districts in place, it couldn't because itspeaks to specificity of what we're trying to accomplish?>> when we bring forward the remaining ordinance, yes, sir,that's intended to provide certainty to the process.>> what happens to theã¡-- if we
approve it today and we bringitã¡-- >> do you want to vote tonight?>> i want to vote. >> what happens between now andthe character districts not really knowing the rules anddecember when we get the rules if somebody wants to develop it?>> not a thing because what governs the use of the propertyis the zoning, which is why i stressed at the beginning, thisis not a regulatory change, it's a planning change.>> that's exactly what they could do today?>> they could do exactly what
they could do today.>> not until we vote in december for zoning with there be achange. >> okay.so back to my question about leaving out the threeproperties. only three properties in thecity that areã¡-- why couldn't we just create an island untothemselves, let those sit out there until we understand, andthen create the character districts and then make thedecision which character district to put them in based onhow it affects the neighborhood
or how it affects the developer?and how it affects the developer.>> the challenge we would have is as we begin developing theparking regulations, for example, we're going to havesome concrete regulations, so my recommendation to you would beto put them in one of the three character districts, actuallyone of the two. could you put them in urbantonight? absolutely.by simple motion of council just as you took east beach and movedit from urban to sub barb ban,
you could do the same thing withthese three properties. >> well, could you moveã¡-- iknow that. i understand what we can do, buti want to understand how it impacts all involved before i doit because people are saying they don't understand, you know,the parking situation, by the way, is just as an aside, nodeveloper worth his salt would ever develop a piece of propertythat wasn't properly parked, enough people that lived there,that worked there could park. do you agree with that, frank?>> i would and in fact one of
the cautions we've heard fromdevelopers is a fear that our proposed standards may be toolow. until we begin talking andworking through what they are, and then they feel morecomfortable. >> i can't conceive of any typeproperty where you would lease to somebody and say, by the way,you have to find your own parking, so i really don't seethat as a huge issue. i still think the unconcerns isthe thing that has everybody worried.>> andy?
>> if i could recommendsomething. i have my opinion of this andi'm not going to say that at this point.however, we canã¡-- and this is just a matter of procedure,paul, and correct me if i'm wrong, just a recommendation.i will move at this point that we take those three propertiesout of the downtown property district, move it into urban.we canã¡-- >> okay.>> we can try to see if that goes up or down.and then i assume that we can
come back andã¡-->> sure. >> i mean if that makes sense,because i have a gut feeling this is going to be a 4-3 as itis. if not 5-2.so i mean, that's my gut, to move it along.>> yeah, okay. i that i that's fair enough.>> well, you know, are we going to still put in jeopardy thecharacter district principle that weã¡-->> no, because weã¡-- >> he's sayingã¡-->> we're going to have the vote.
it's either going to be up ordown with the carve-out or carve-in, and then if thatdoesn't go, then we can vote it through the other way.>> right. because i have a feeling it willbe 4-3 as it is. >> so theã¡-->> if notã¡-- >> i still don't understand whywe couldn't exempt the three properties.>> because they have to have all the boundaries delineated beforethey can do it, that's just the rules.and if you look at theã¡-- well,
look up.if you look at the specifics that he's got delineated, it isreally pretty well spelled out. it really is there for you, soit's not some floating issue. >> okay.the staff's recommendation is that those properties, the northbrambleton properties by the hague that we've been talkingabout, be in the traditionalã¡-- or in the downtown characterdistrict. and the motion is that they bemoved into the urban district. okay?>> so we can call the roll on
that.>> mr. burfoot. >> no.>> mr.ã¡protogyrou. >> no.>> mr.ã¡winn. >> no.>> mr. fraim. >> no.pardon me? >> i said that will beã¡-- well,3-4. >> all right.so we need five votes and we don't get there.now we vote on the character districts.okay.
>> two ordinances for this sidemr.ã¡president. i have an ordinance to amend thegeneral plan of norfolk, 1992, so as to define characterdistributions within the city and to recommend theirlocations. >> if i may, mr.ã¡mayor, i don'tremember voting on whether east beach is urban and sub barb ban.>> no, we did. >> it's been a long night.>> we're not done. >> okay, we're not done.>> beginning of a long night. >> okay.>> dispense with the charter
requirement for reading theordinance and adopt. >> mr. protogyrou.>> ky speak at this times? >> yes.>> i think procedurally, my preference would be to movethese properties into the urban district and that's why i madethe motion, and there are a couple reasons behind that and ireally would like to give some rationale as to why.first of all, i think that in listening to the speakerstonight a majority of speakers tonight and the majority of thecontact we've had has been from
citizens who live in the areaand i really think that we have to, when we weigh out thebusiness side of it, and i appreciate bruce being here andthe others that come, and ray, and i appreciate that, but youdon't live there. i don't live there, and i haveto really respect the individuals who live in thearea, and you know, it was interesting, most of the mostcompelling arguments really is that foot bridge and i know thatfoot bridge, what you're going to have is, yes, you wouldhaveã¡-- i can see people being
on one side, coming across,parking over there, which was really something that really hithome with me and i made sure i wrote that down when it wassaid. i'm going to go back to frank.frank, you may have given anthony the credit for thisã¡--no, you don't have to get up. i think what struck me was as towhy character districts are significant, when we first cameon council a little over two years ago, it seemed that everydeveloper was coming in, wanting to build apartments all over thecity and it was willy-nilly and
i remember saying, and atsomeã¡-- i was voting against them, saying if you want anexception, you're not getting it or if you want some kindã¡--we're not, i'm not agreeing to a variance, i'm not agreeing,you're stuck with the law as it is.that's the density, that's how it is.and finally, i remember going to frank and saying go block byblock within the city and come up where we can have apartmentsand where we can't have them because they're going upeverywhere.
and then frank and the characterdistricts, whether they were in play at the time or startedcoming about because we do need to get some control of this.as terri said, we do know where we are generally in ourunderstanding of, of theã¡-- of the zoning issue.we know generally the density issues.we understand those and there are going to be someadjustments. in the end, i'm somebody whowants character districts, but i figured that we could vote up ordown on this issue and having
lost that issue, i will now voteyes for the character distributions because i thinkit's a significant issue and something i've sought.it's unfortunate that we lost amending it to consider what wewere doing with regard these properties, but i will vote infavor of it at this time, so it's aye.>> mr. smigiel. >> no.>> dr. whibley? >> i similarly amã¡-- have toreally thank frank duke. i call him about every threedays regarding this issue, and
he's been a real trooper and hasgone to all the civic leagues, even when he wasn't requestedto. he's really done nis duediligence on that and i really want to thank him for that.i am struck by that the neighborhood came.i've heard them speak, they're concerned as i about thecharacter of that corner and the surrounding yarmouth.once we vote this in, it's voted in through perpetuity.i understand nusbaum being concerned about loss ofdevelopment rights, but then it
goes to the next and to the nextand to the next. when it came to east beach, theneighbors spoke and we voted. this time, it came to theneighbors and we didn't. so i'm disappointed that ithappened. but character districts areimportant and, i like andy, am not going to throw the baby outwith the bath water, so i'm going to vote aye.>> ms.ã¡williams. >> yeah e.>> mr.ã¡winn. >> i'm going to vote aye, buti'm going to make one more
punctuation point here.first of all, we appreciate everybody coming down here andtheir involvement in this really important issue.i would say the downtown norfolk council, those folks haveã¡-- imean, they're enlightened as well as the ghent neighborhoodleague is and the ghent business association.you can tell this council is divided.we see this stuff differently, and we're trying to move thecity forward. the issue about here on thenorth of brambleton, the thing
that i keep coming back to is wehadã¡-- is that zoning and distinctions of thesedistributions are sort of social contracts that you have withpeople. and you have people who haveinvested in property there who have a stake in it, who weareã¡-- we would be changing the game on them right now.and as far as i can tell, i know what frank said, we're going totalk about these frameworks, that very little, if nothing, ischanging by maintaining the present tradition, the presentdowntown designation for this
property.i justã¡-- and we're also maintaining that social contractwith people who invest in our city, soã¡-- anyway, i'm sorry,but iã¡-- so. >> second is an ordinance toamend and reordain section 2-3 of the zoning ordinance of thecity of norfolk 1992 in order to create definitions of characterdistricts. mr. burfoot.>> i will say this. that, you know, everyone up herehas a level of expertise in various areas.i think at the end of the day,
we're protecting the communitiesaround, in and around downtown by creating these characterdistricts, but more importantly, by putting this in the downtowndistrict and, you know, again, if we do this right and i'vespent a lot of time with frank, the community willã¡-- thecommunities around it would not be negatively impacted, and itensures that we have the proper controls in terms of dealingwith developers and i think at the end of the day, that's whatyou want to establish. you want to try to protect theintegrity of the communities
around it, but also make surethat you get the right mix of the development, whether it becommercial or retail or residential in those communitiesand preserve those communities for years to come.so i vote aye. okay, thank you very much forcoming down. we really appreciate theconversation and the interest everyone has demonstrated.thank you. public hearing 2, please.>> hearing scheduled this day pursuant to action of thecouncil on july 24, 2012, under
the state law, to hear commentson the sale of approximately one acre of city owned land onmonticello avenue between 16th and 17th streets to chick-fil-a,inc. >> there's no member of thepublic signed up to speak to the council on this matter.call the roll. >> i have an ordinanceauthorizing the land disposition and development contract to beentered into with chick-fil-a and authorizing the conveyanceof real property to chick-fil-a as provided in the lddc.dispense with the charter
can i speak?>> sure. >> is this aã¡-- is thisã¡-- isthis a contingent contract should chick-fil-a not besatisfied with what planning is saying or doing with regard tothe setting of the chick-fil-a on the property?>> we have design review. >> right.>> so that if chick-fil-a is not willingã¡-- if we don't reachagreement on the design, closing is contingent to that.>> okay. >> so this is a contingentmatter is what we're voting upon
to allow?>> the contract is not contingent on that, but thecontract requires the design to be approved by us.so that it would be in violation of the contractã¡-- the contractrequires design review and approval.>> if our design review and approval says we don't like yourbuilding, we're not breaching the contract?>> no, so we'reã¡-- >> they're allowed out.>> they could enjoin or terminateã¡-->> they're allowed out, so
that's a contingency then, am icorrect? >> yes.>> all right. aye.>> mr. smigiel. >> aye.public hearing 3, please. >> public hearing scheduled thisday pursuant to action of the council on july 24, 2012, underthe state law, on the application of faith in actionchurch by william m. verebely, jr. to amend the general plan ofnorfolk, 1992, to change the land use designation from mediumdensity residential to
commercial/office, and for achange of zoning from r-11 and c-2 districts to conditional c-2district on property located at 4603 cape henry avenue.by a vote of 6-0, planning commission recommends approval.>> and fred gallop, who i see out here, on behalf of the civicleague is here to answer any questions.he's a proponent, and william zaraby is here as well.he is the applicant. no otherã¡-- no opposition.no other speakers. call the roll.>> i have two ordinances.
so as to change the land usedesignation for property located at 4603 cape henry avenue frommedium density residential to commercial/office.dispense with the charter public hearing 4.>> i have a second ordinance. ordinance to rezone propertylocated at 4603 cape henry avenue from c 2 to traditional.dispense with the charter requirement to reading theordinance. application of rainbow buildingcorporation by donald koester to amend the general plan ofnorfolk, 1992, from low density
residential to medium densityresidential and for a change of zoning from r-8 district toconditional r-9 district on property located at 3316 marneavenue. by vote of 6-0, planningcommission recommends approval. >> call the roll.>> i have two ordinances for this.i have an ordinance to amend the general plan of norfolk, 1992,so as to change the land use designation for property locatedat 3316 marne avenue from low density residential to mediumdensity residential.
dispense with the charterrequirement for reading the ordinance and adopt.mr. burfoot. >> aye.>> mr. protogyrou. >> he's not seeking to buildmultifamily here, is he? >> look at the two separateunits, which is the lot with it. >> no, sir, what the request isis to rezone the property so it can be sub divided and createtwo single-family houses. >> aye.>> i just pull it up fast enough and i look at it, but understandit.
public hearing five.>> second ordinance is an ordinance to rezone propertylocated at 3316 marne avenue from r-8 to conditional r-9.dispense with the charter public hearing 5, please.>> public hearing scheduled this day pursuant to action of thecouncil on july 24, 2012 under the state law, on theapplication of robyn thomas for a change of zoning from i-1district to c-2 and pco-21st districts on property located at901-921 west 21st street. >> and robyn thomas is here asthe applicant and the proponent
if we have any questions aboutthis. okay.>> i have an ordinance to rezone property located at 901 to 921west 21st street from i-1 district and pco-21st district.dispense with the charter public hearing 6.>> public hearing scheduled this day pursuant to action of thecouncil on july 24, 2012, under the state law, on theapplication of vicki s. hatch for the closing, vacating, anddiscontinuing a portion of kincaid avenue from the westernline of early street to its
terminus.by vote of 6-0, planning commission recommends approval.>> no one signed up to address is council on this matter.so you can call the roll. >> i have an ordinance closing,vacating, and discontinuing a portion of kincaid avenue andauthorizing the conveyance to the abutting property owner ofany interest the city may have in the underlying fee of saidportion of kincaid avenue. >> aye.the consent agenda, there are nine items here and is c-7 goingto be voted on at the end of the
docket as a regular agenda item,right? >> that's correct,mr.ã¡president. >> does any member of thecouncilã¡-- would you like to have any one of these mattersconsidered separately? >> c-8.>> c-8? okay.>> to approve the consent agendas with exception of c.7 and 8. mr.ã¡burfoot.>> aye. and this is to advertise for apublic hearing, correct, c-8?
>> yes, sir.>> and gel leah, do you haveã¡-- >> no, i'd just like to talkwith the civic leagues and what not on this issue more before wemove forward on it. >> before we schedule the publichearing? >> yes.>> okay. then why don't we just delaythis one until the next meeting, what is that, the 11th?of september? >> yes, sir.>> the next night meeting? okay.continued until 9/11 on the
consent agenda.>> mr. burfoot. >> if i could ask, i havenoticed there seems to beã¡-- and it's coming up often, we'reseeing a lot of auto repair facilities, tire facilities, andi justã¡-- auto repair and truck facility.within the city. and i don'tã¡-- i understand wewant businesses here, but there's a lot that comes withthese, cars on the lots, parts laying everywhere.i mean, i really have an issue with this.it's somethingã¡-- and i
appreciate angelia wanting topull it and i want to wrap it up with this.that being said, this is reallyã¡-- if we can have franklook at this because it's almost to the extent of check cashingfacilities and things like that, that they're coming up, and thisis not the first one. this is about the third in thelast four meetings. little creek road is a greatexample of what went wrong, so i'll agree with putting it offand say aye, but we really need to examine this.>> frank, we don't need toch
because we can talk about it inan informal session of the council.>> just wanted to let you know you do have a letter of supportfor this item from the eagle side civic league.we did not move this to planning commission until we had thatsupport. >> and the planning commission'svote was? >> they recommended supportbased on the recommendation of theã¡-- from the neighborhood.>> okay. then the motion is to continueto september 11th.
>> and i'm at mr. smigiel.>> and just real quick, looking at the map of this, this istotally within an industrial area, not on a main road, butaye. >> ms.ã¡williams.>> and ingleside at mangrove is industrial and residential, sothat potential for those extra cars, that's what the concern isfor me. i just want to go back to thecivic league and just double check and make sure with them.aye. r-1, please.>> we didn't do 7?
you're going to do 7ã¡-->> at the end of regular agenda. all right.>> trying to help you out, man. >> r-1.>> an ordinance accepting $100,000 from the virginiadepartment of emergency management fiscal year 2011homeland security grant program and appropriating andauthorizing the expenditure of the funds for the purchase oflicense plate readers for the hampton roads urban areasecurity initiative region grant program.dispense with the charter
r-2.>> an ordinance accepting a 2012 public safety grant award of upto $1,500 from the target corporation, and appropriatingand authorizing the expenditure of the grant funds to supportthe norfolk police departmentäºs citywide national night outevent. >> aye.r-3. >> a resolution acknowledgingand concurring with the june 20, 2012, resolution of norfolkpublic schools 55512 electing the employer-certifiedcontribution rate of 11.10% on
behalf of employees who aremembers of the virginia retirement system effectivejulyã¡1, 2012. >> aye.>> mr. riddick. r-4.>> an ordinance accepting grant funds in the amount of $337,050from the virginia department of criminal justice services forthe continuation of the victim/witness assistanceprogram and appropriating and authorizing the expenditure ofthe funds for the program. >> aye.r-5.
>> an ordinance granting aspecial exception to permit the operation of a commercialdrive-through facility on property located at 1818monticello avenue. by 4-0 vote, planning commissionrecommend approval. >> and mr.ã¡jeremy rives and robheb ner are here to answer questions.all right. >> dispense with the charterrequirement for reading the >> aye.r-6. operation of an eating anddrinking establishment on
property located at 420monticello avenue, suite 100. by 3-0, the planning commissionrecommends approval. dispense with the charterrequirementã¡-- >> just a second.phil garrison is here to answer questions if we have any.i'm sorry. go ahead.>> dispense with the charter r-7.>> an ordinance granting a special exception to operate anentertainment establishment on property located at 241 granbystreet.
planning commission recommendsapproval. >> aye.r-8. operation of an entertainmentestablishment on property located at 123 west 21st street.planning commission recommends approval.>> mr.ã¡sum williams, are you here?and allen basen is here to answer questions.okay. cal the roll.>> dispense with the charter >> in protogyrou.>> aye.
r-9.>> an ordinance permitting cape view village i condominiumowners association to encroach into city property at 1878 eastocean view avenue with a wood walkway and stairs.dispense with the charter requirement to read theordinance and adopt. r-10.>> an ordinance granting riverview associates, llc,permission to encroach into the right of way of 1907 colonialavenue and approving the terms and conditions of theencroachment agreement.
>> aye.r-11. >> an ordinance to amend andreordain section 25-321 of the norfolk city code, 1979, so asto add a section to authorize the operation of electric golfcarts in berkley and pinewell. >> jane bethel is here toã¡--she's a proponent. jane, do you want to speak?you wantã¡-- catch you later? okay.call the roll. >> just real quickly, i votedagainst this one time for a condominium complex that wasasking for this.
pinewell, which is in ward five,had asked for this. they're adjacent to a golfcourse. that makes sense.i meanã¡-- >> you voted against it whenlockhaven came. >> i think, there's placements,we have to be careful with these golf carts, communities, broadcreek, there are a couple other communities that make sensebecause they were defined that way, but when we start allowinggolf carts in neighborhoods that normally wouldn't handle golfcarts, i don't knowã¡--
>> like larchmont?>> i don't know if later onã¡-- we're next to an airport.>> i don't know what kind of conversation this leads to.should we have character districts for golf carts, frank?>> leave frank alone. he'sã¡-->> i know. i don't know, down the road,when we're lookingã¡-- >> i depends on if there'senough parking for them. >> it was ward two.>> and berkley said the shipyardsã¡-->> yeah, i don't know.
i'm just saying down the road,just, if we're looking at the plan 2030, i don't know ifthat's being addressed in here or not, but, of course, aye.>> we need some air time. >> oh, man.>> it's a golf community. they can't even haveã¡-->> what am i voting on? >> golf carts.>> aye. >> we know you're behind that.>> he reminded us that he voted against it before, but now he'svoting for it. >> it was a one to complex.>> ms. williams.
>> that's because i didn't likeyou then. go ahead.>> mr. winn. >> barclay.>> mr. winn. >> yes, aye.r-12. >> an ordinance permittingbarbara smith to encroach into north shore road right of waywith an existing house and overhang.dispense with the charter r-13.>> an ordinance approving the terms of right of entryagreement with adams outdoor
advertising relative to certainvacant property located at 1301 north military highway in thecity of norfolk. >> aye.r-14. >> an ordinance to amend andreordain sections 25-653, 654, and 656 of the norfolk citycode, 1979, so as to add one new yield intersection, 21 new stopintersections, and one trucks of one-half tons or overprohibition. >> this is r-15.>> okay. yes.>> i'm sorry, 14.
>> yeah, this is theã¡-->> yes. >> stop signs and stuff.>> i said aye. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear you.mr. smigiel. >> aye.r-15. >> an ordinance authorizing theacquisition of an easement for right of way improvements overcertain property located at 2900 cape henry avenue in the city ofnorfolk, approving the terms and conditions of the deed ofeasement, and authorizing the expenditure of the sum of $350from funds heretofore
appropriated to pay the purchaseprice for the easement. >> aye.r-16. right of way improvements overcertain property located at 3000 expenditure of the sum of $600from funds heretofore >> aye.r-17. >> an ordinance authorizing theconveyance to the city of norfolk by childrenäºs hospitalof the kingäºs daughters, incorporated, of certainproperty located at intersection of the southern portion ofgreenway court and hampton
boulevard in the city ofnorfolk, virginia, and authorizing the city manager toaccept the deed on behalf of the city.dispense with the charter r-18.>> an ordinance to amend and reordain article x of chapter 25of the norfolk city code, 1979, so as to allow the riding ofbicycles on sidewalks by amending section 25-398 and toeliminate the registration requirements for bicycles byrepealing sections 25-377, 25-379, 25-380, 25-381, 25-382,25-383, 25-384 and 25-385, and
amending section 25-378.dispense with the charter r-19.>> a resolution approving the norfolk community servicesboardäºs performance contract with the commonwealth for fiscalyear 2012 renewable by mutual agreement for fiscal year 2014.adopt resolution. r-20.>> an ordinance amending ordinance number 44,654 so as toprovide health benefits for one previously authorized specialproject position. >> special projects position?>> yes, this is previously
approved and the intention wasthat it would have health insurance with it.generally it doesn't, so this is just to make the provision forthe health insurance. >> okay.aye. r-21.>> an ordinance vacating the western five feet of a ten-footdrainage easement located along the eastern property line oflotã¡2, block 5, subdivision of sussex, also known as 604sterling street, in the city of norfolk.dispense with the charter
r-22.>> an ordinance to change the starting time of the regularweekly city council meeting scheduled for tuesday,septemberã¡25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. to september 24, 2012, at9:00ã¡a.m. and to move the location of said meeting.dispense with the charter r-23.>> an ordinance directing the city treasurer to issue a refundto quarles petroleum, inc., based upon the correction ofbusiness license tax assessments.dispense with the charter
r-24.>> an ordinance directing the city treasurer to issue a refundto cca financial, llc, based upon the correction of businesspersonal property tax r-25.>> an ordinance directing the city treasurer to issue a refundto cma-cgm america, llc, based upon the correction of businesslicense tax assessments. >> aye.r-26. >> an ordinance directing thecity treasurer to issue a refund to port norfolk transport, inc.,based upon the correction of
business license tax assessmentstax years 2007 through 2008. >> aye.r-27. to crofton diving corporationbased upon the correction of business license tax assessmentstax year 2012. >> aye.r-28. to nyt shared services center,inc., based upon the correction of business personal propertytax assessments. >> aye.r-29. >> an ordinance to accepting agrant in the amount of $29,684
from the virginia department ofcriminal justice services for the norfolk court-appointedspecial advocate, casa, program, appropriating and authorizingthe expenditure of the grant funds for the program,appropriating up to $41,005 in city matching funds and creatingand funding a special project employee position for the casaprogram director. >> just a quick question,bernard. with those grants that we haveto approve, can they get lumped together in oneã¡-- do they haveto be individual or can they go
on to our consent items?>> let me pay attention to that. it will vary, so that this onehas with it an appropriation in addition, and probably needs tobe on the regular agenda, and separate because it's not justto accept the grant, so thatã¡-- let me see if i can't get moreefficiency, but this one needed to stand alone.>> okay. great.thanks, aye. r-30.>> a resolution establishing the mayoräºs commission on povertyreduction.
>> just a second.dan montague? >> good evening, mr.ã¡mayor,council, mr.ã¡jones. my name is dan mon ta gu, i liveat 4605 creek street here in the city of norfolk.i have to take part in this poverty reduction committee,commission, because my hrusb bill this month is half again asmuch as it was a couple months back.i keep telling this council, this little bag here, i put outevery week, and it doesn't weigh ten pounds when i put it in thecan.
but yet, my rate keeps going up,and the thing about it is, we have got to draw the line onthis because, you know, my pension checks don't keep goingup and so therefore, you know, i mean, i'm putting out the samelittle bit of trash, you know, but you guys keep raising therates on me. you know, and i can understandif it was three or four dollars, but, you know, when you'remaking half again as much as it was in the spring, that's alittle bit much. so makeã¡-->> so you're against the poverty
commission?>> huh? >> never mind.>> i'm for it because i need it. >> got it.thank you, dan. >> to adopt the resolution.mr. burfoot. >> aye.thank you very much. r-31.>> an ordinance to amend and reordain chapter 2.1 of thenorfolk city code, 1979, as amended, so as to add one newarticle. and this item establishesmilitary economic development
advisory committee and themayor's advisory commission on veterans affairs.>> john willis. mr.ã¡willis, will youã¡-- i'll beright with you, tom. >> excuse me, i'm not doing toowell. my name is john willis, i havelived in the city of norfolk at different addresses for thebetter part of 50 years. i live in a 2200 block oftarrallton drive right now. i lived there for about 30years. okay.i'm also president of branch 60
of the fleet reserveassociation, veterans association for sea serviceveterans, navy, marine corps and coast guard.we currently have some 900-some-odd members.having lived here for a long time, i've seen the city'sinterest in veterans go from enthusiastic embrace todeafening indifference. i am for this advisorycommission on veterans because i think the city needs to payattention to their veterans. how they think, how they live,and what their interests are.
i applaud captain forã¡-- that'sall i have to say. >> thank you for coming down,mr.ã¡willis. tom lasher.>> good evening, tom lesher. i reside at 4912 cape henryavenue in norfolk. the city of norfolk has withinits boundaries reputation of just about every major veteransorganization this country has, and in some cases, there aremore affiliatesã¡-- we have two or three three affiliates ofã¡--even three affiliates of each of those organizations.this change to the ordinance
will give the city council adirect line to all these organizations.now, with assistance at patriotic activities, questionsyou may have about different veterans affairs that the citywould like to conduct and in turn it gives all theseorganizations a direct line to the city council.now, the idea is that we would have to assist the veterans inany help that we can provide the city, so i obviously am going tospeakã¡-- i speak in favor of this resolution.i've been working with john
andrews on this and we're inplace and all we're waiting for is the go-ahead and away we go.thank you very much. >> if i can, tom isã¡-- was thegenesis of this effort to create this advisory commission, and hestop me one day in my tracks, i don't know, year and a half ago,tom? longer?>> just about, yeah. >> and said norfolk needed acommission like this to address the concerns of the veterans andwe would have a veterans day ceremony.there are lots, all sorts of
things, especially as thepopulation is declining and growing, and we have a lot ofyounger veterans coming out obviously who need our help, andtom has beenã¡-- he's been involved in a lot of really goodefforts, and this isã¡-- tom has agreed to serve on thecommission and to be a part of it and i want to thank you forthis. and john, thank you for comingdown. we intend to take this earusly.thank you very much. >> thank you.>> all right.
>> aye.r-32. >> an ordinance to amend andreordain chapter 6.1 of the norfolk city code, 1979, so asto add a new article viii creating an animal advisoryboard. >> ellis james.>> thank you, mr.ã¡mayor. members of the city council,mr.ã¡jones, my city manager, my name is ellis w. james.i reside at 2021 kenlake place here in the great city ofnorfolk. first of all, i'd like to thankyou very much for the action
that you've just taken on 31.very important for our veterans. i would like to rise in supportof this new committee or commission, whichevertechnically it is, and i would like to keep it simple becauseyou've been through a long meeting.i'd like to recommend to the city that as you set this animaladvisory board up, that you consider appointing person orpersons who have studied the behavior patterns of raptors atthe norfolk botanical garden and as an example, as you well know,eagle experts, photographers,
scientists, etcetera.in view of the proposed harassment of birds aroundnorfolk international airport, which borders the garden.i think it would be very appropriate at this pointbecause we are in for a tough slog in the months and severalyears ahead, i'm afraid. thank you, mr.ã¡mayor.>> thank you. >> thank you.>> call the roll, please. >> it's about time.aye. >> dr. whibley.>> obviously you haven't been
here long enough.this is likeã¡-- aye. >> mr. fraim.>> no. i'm kidding.aye. [ laughter ]>> the next item was c-7, mr.ã¡president, and it is aordinance approving the third amendment between the city ofnorfolk and directing invest llc for the premises located at 500east main street in the city of knock, authorizing the citymanager to security the third amendment to the lease andauthoring the expenditure of a
sum of up to $121,870 from fundsheretofore appropriated to cover the lease payments incorporateremainder of fiscal year 2012-2013.dispense with the charter mr. burfoot.>> that is lease? >> yes.this is a renovation of the existing lease.the development has negotiated a lower rent in consideration ofextending it, so yes, it's the lease for the estate on mainstreet, the department of development operates in theoffice building that
mr.ã¡protogyrou represents.>> you have to give him that shot.i mean, one time we talked about consolidatingã¡-- we have abuilding on granby street that's pretty empty, other than i.t.being in that building. why are we still leasing fromother folks instead of putting thatã¡-- saving that money?>> city manager question. >> i was looking at bernard, i'msorry. >> well, i mean, that's exactlywhat we're trying to do in terms of getting out of space thatwe're leasing.
this was something that wasn'tplanned as one of the moves, moving a department, but i willassure you when the opportunities arise, we do havea list of departments we'd like to consolidate and get out ofleasing space. >> and that's an opportunity, imean. my goodness, i mean, we're notmoving from downtown, but i mean, we have aã¡-- i'm sureyou've been over to that granby building and the space that wehave available over there. i just think that we'reã¡-- youknow, we can complain about how
tight times are as relates toresources, 120-some-thousand dollars to me is a lot of moneywhen we consider we don't have to be utilizing that money forrent space at this time. so i just hope that we do abetter job in terms of looking at these opportunities andmaximizing the spaces that we do have.i'm going to vote no. >> mr. smigiel.>> just real quick comment. i think one of the purposes ofhaving the economic development in that space is because ofbeing able to market our city to
potential developers and it is awonderful conference room. i've been in there a coupletimes and i think it shows off our city.but, you know, regardless of that's a good reason or not,it'sã¡-- aye. >> i have one additional item,mr.ã¡president. a resolutions a pointing arereappointing 18 persons to four boards and two commissions forcertain terms. adopt the resolution.mr. burfoot. >> aye.>> that's all i have, mr.
president.>> that conclusion the formal portion of tonight's agenda.captioning provided by caption associates, llcwww.captionassociates.com
No comments:
Post a Comment