2003-09-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 with property, not who is doing it. She said t here are no court cases regarding this in Virginia. She said the City has had this provision for a number of years and there have been no challenges to it. Mr. Lynch said it is incumbent on us to assure that density bonuses are done properly. Mr. Cara vati said he takes exception with restricting accessory apartments to owner occupied houses. He said it is an equal protection under the law issue and he does not want to discriminate against renters. He said he also thinks the access requirements are un duly restrictive. Mr. Schilling read from a memo from the City Attorney's office giving their opinion that both the accessory apartment restriction and density bonuses are unenforceable. He said he is not comfortable going forward with something the Cit y Attorney's office advises against. Mr. Schilling made a motion to remove the owner occupancy requirement for accessory apartments, and Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. Mr. Lynch took exception with Mr. Caravati's statement about discrimination agains t renters. He said the original intent was to allow rentals to be accommodated in R - 1 neighborhoods and to provide affordable rental opportunities. He said he feels it has been successful on a limited basis. He said if we want to get rid of R - 1A comple tely we could do that. He said the big problem is not renters, but absentee landlords. He said having this restriction preserves control. Mr. Cox said he agreed with Mr. Lynch and said it provides the ability to integrate renters in neighborhoods. He said he is interested in monitoring how many accessory apartments are done. He said this provisions allows homes to be affordable to families. Ms. Richards said allowing accessory apartments in rental houses would open it up to be available in all city neighborhoods, and would make them essentially duplexes. Mr. Schilling's motion was denied by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati and Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards. Mr. Lynch said he would like to make sure that in front of the document we clarify what outstanding pieces of the zoning ordinance are. He said he would also like to have a mid - year and one year review of the ordinance. Mr. Tolbert said that the Planning Commission has asked that an introductory letter be gi ven with the zoning ordinance to that effect rather than having it in the ordinance itself. Mr. Lynch said outcome measurements are important, including transit ridership and neighborhood parking. He said code and parking enforcement will also be very i mportant. Ms. Kelley asked that the cover document be amended to reflect some wording changes. Mr. Lynch made a motion to amend the ordinance to this effect and Mr. Caravati seconded the motion. The ordinance was amended by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. Mr. Caravati thanked staff from the City Attorney's office and Neighborhood Development Services for their hard work on the ordinance. The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE - ENACT CHAPTER 34 (ZONING) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE," nd as amended, which was offered at the September 2 meeting, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes : None.