2003-11-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

106 Responding to a question from Mr. Schilling about problems associated with giving warnings after 12 hours should that occur at night, Mr. Brown said that as a practical matter people will not be cited during nighttime hours. Mr. Schilling said he does not want to create a problem for staff by requiring they issue citations in the middle of the night. Mr. Caravati asked if state law allows the City to discriminate between the types of use of the property such as requiring a higher standard for sidewalks adjacent to commercial properties than residential. Mr. Brown said that under the equal protection law, the City would have to cite a rational reason for doing so, but he believes it could be done. Mr. O'Connell said that the problems occur mostly in mixed use areas. Ms. Richards made a motion to substitute the ordinance requiring snow removal after 12 hours, with a 12 hour warning period, a nd Mr. Lynch seconded the motion. The substitute ordinance was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Caravati. The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 28 - 25 OF ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 28 OF THE CHARLOTESVILLE CITY CODE, 1990 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO STREETS AND SIDEWALKS," as amended, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Caravati. MINUTES th Mr. Schill ing and Ms. Richards asked that the minutes of October 6 be amended, but Mr. Caravati requested that the approval of the minutes be deferred until the next meeting. ORDINANCE : CREATION OF CORNER DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT Ms. Richards said she understan ds that one property owner on Elliewood Avenue had asked that a couple of properties be removed from the design control district. Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that is correct, but was not the intent of the Planni ng Commission. Mr. Schilling said he thinks everyone agrees that we have an historic treasure on the Corner, but he cannot support the design control district in this form. He said adding th the Corner as a 6 district is a worthy goal, but does not think it is achieved by this ordinance. Mr. Schilling said that three letters opposing the district have been received from property owners as well as calls to staff opposing the district. He said in the past Council has been reluctant to close an alley if on ly one person objects. Mr. Schilling said he feels there has been a lack of consistency on the part of the BAR. He referenced a residence on Farish Street, the support by the BAR for a contemporary design for the Juvenile Court Building, and modern desig n of the new Live Arts building on Water Street. Although he supports and appreciates the design of the Live Arts building, he said the public might wonder how that type of modern design was approved in an historic district, which lists "incompatible arch itectural character" as a reason for denial of a project. He said he does not see the design as compatible with the character of the district as referenced in the staff report and the ordinance. He said the implementation of the ordinance suggests that th e words may be out of step with the actual practice. He said the philosophy seems counter intuitive to allow this type of new development in historic districts. He said if we wish to designate an area as a "Historical Preservation District" in order to en sure that new development will be compatible with the character of the district" then this existing process seems to work against what it is ultimately trying to accomplish, the maintenance of the historic look and feel of a particular area of the City.