2004-07-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13 Mr. Schilling said he does not want to delay the project, but there is a philosophical difference between the Planning Commission and his view. He said we have setback requirements for a good reason. He said he does not think it is good public policy to waive the requirement. He said he would like to see a slight modification and if there was a 5' setback he could support the rezoning. Mr. Lynch said he thinks Mr. Schilling has a good point and thinks this should be addressed in the zoning ordinance review. Mr. Lynch said he feels there should be administrative exceptions to allow creativity. Mr. Tolbert pointed out that PUDs have no setback requirement though Council can require a certain setback. Ms. Hamilton asked who is responsible for improvements on Meadow Street, and Mr. Tolbert said the property owner is for the length of the property. Mr. Lynch asked if restricting the building footprint to 1,600 square feet would cause a hardship. Mr. Tom Hickman, applicant, said it would not cause a hardship, but a definition would be needed of which that included. He said he would not want patios or porches included. He said he has no problem with having 5' setbacks. Ms. Hamilton asked about the variation in setbacks between Phase 1 and 2. Mr. Hickman said this is the only time setbacks have been discussed. Ms. Hamilton asked if Mr. Hickman agrees to the 5' setback requirement is there still a need to restrict the footprint, and Mr. Lynch said no. Mr. Schilling made a motion to amend the setback requirement to 5', Mr. Lynch seconded the motion, and it was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling Noes: None. The ordinance "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 34-1 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, (AS AMENDED) BY THE RE-ZONING OF TM 37, PARCELS 83A AND 83B, FROM "R- 2" TO "PUD" (MADISON PLACE PUD, PHASE II)," which was offered at the June 21st meeting, with the setback requirement amended, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Caravati. ORDINANCE: CLOSING PORTION OF CASTALIA STREET Mr. Caravati asked if closing of the street will allow for additional density to the adjoining properties, and Ms. Claudette Grant, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said no. Mr. Caravati said he is unsure about the pedestrian easement requirement and does not remember doing that before. Mr. Brown said there is some inconsistency in closing the street and maintaining a pedestrian easement. Mr. Brown said if the easement is maintained then the value of the property would be reduced. Mr. Schilling pointed out that the ordinance as written does not state that an easement will be maintained, and Mr. Brown said that is correct. Responding to a question from Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Brown said the ordinance as written requires a payment for the property.