2004-12-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13 Mr. Caravati said he cannot support this rezoning. He said the Planning Commission is considering changing the PUD ordinance on small lots. He made a motion to deny the rezoning. Mr. Lynch said that the applicant asked for off-street parking and is planning to widen the street and add sidewalks, and asked about a proffer for that. Mr. Tolbert said the sidewalk is a requirement, not a proffer. He said the issue of widening the street, if feasible, will be dealt with in the site plan. Ms. Hamilton said that while Council did deny a PUD on a small lot, the Planning Commission recommended this rezoning knowing that they are studying the PUD ordinance. Mr. Caravati's motion to deny died for lack of a second. Mr. Lynch made a motion to approve the rezoning. He said there is a difference between this and others because it easily achieves the open space requirement. Dr. Brown seconded the motion and the ordinance entitled "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 REZONING OF PARCELS 361,361.6, 361.5 AND 361.4, CITY TAX MAP 59 FROM R-iS TO PUD" (CORNER OF AVON STREET AND PALATINE AVENUE) was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. RESOLUTION: REFERRING 217 DOUGLAS PUD BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Lynch said that when we refer this back to the Planning Commission, he would not want them to re-evaluate it with the existing PUD ordinance. He said open space should not be the only determining factor. He said he would like the issues of walkability, density and storm water management to be evaluated within the context of a new PUD ordinance. Ms. Hamilton asked why this is a good candidate to serve as a model to create a new ordinance. Mr. Lynch said that in some places we want to maximize open space, but in some places this should not be the defining characteristic and he feels other criteria should be used. Dr. Brown asked about the timeline for reconsidering the PUD. Mr. Tolbert said the earliest it would come back to Council would be March or April. He said if it is referred back to the Planning Commission it will have to be evaluated with the existing ordinance. He said the Planning Commission felt there was too much density but he feels there are other opportunities on this site that will satisfy the Planning Commission and neighborhood. He said if Council denies this request then the applicant will have to wait a year to resubmit the rezoning request. He said he feels there is an opportunity to resolve the issues. Mr. Caravati asked if he thinks significant changes will be made, and Mr. Tolbert said yes. Mr. Caravati asked if it is correct that if Council takes no action now they have a year to act on the rezoning, and Mr. Brown said there is no time limit for Council action, but he has always recommended that Council take prompt action. Dr. Brown said he has no problem sending this back to the Planning Commission.