2006-01-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 Ms. Hamilton asked if there will be design review of what is built after a building is demolished, and Ms. Scala said yes. Mr. Caravati said concern has been expressed by property owners in this area about what a contributing structure is. He asked for a legal opinion on whether the proposal is stretching the law. Mr. Brown said he thinks it is a defensible distinction and that it strengthens the ordinance. He said the legal concept is good. Mr. Caravati said concern has also been expressed about what will be built after a building is demolished. Ms. Scala said building plans will have to be in agreement with guidelines that Council has previously adopted. Mr. Caravati asked if the new construction will need to be compatible with the entire district or those buildings in a smaller area. Ms. Scala said they would generally need to be in compatible with other buildings in the vicinity. She said the district has been divided into sub areas. Mr. Caravati asked if there are any legal concerns about this, and Mr. Brown said it is not addressed in enabling legislation and it leaves discretion for the BAR to make that determination. Mr. Lynch disclosed that he owns property in the area, but as a group of owners feels he can look at the issue objectively. Mr. Lynch said that since 2003 there has been concern that as we rezone and make the area attractive for high density, it is also important to protect classic structures. He said creating the district is a way to strike a balance and help sort out the conflict between zoning and historic preservation. He said he thinks most of the properties are graded 2 and 3, but he said he thinks some of the properties graded 3 are pretty marginal. He said he would rather see us look at individual properties. He said he favors option 1 which has the largest boundary. He made a motion to adopt alternative 1, but said as we move forward, we should look at what it means to properties owners to have properties graded 1, 2 3, or 4. He said he would like to give more flexibility. Dr. Brown seconded the motion to approve option 1. Ms. Hamilton said she does not think anything quite like this has come before her since she has been on Council. She said there is a strong feeling to want to preserve properties, but many property owners oppose the district. She said some felt when the high density district was created that this area was becoming the sacrificial lamb, and others said the intent was always to create a preservation district. She said she is uneasy about placing the entire City under design control. She said we have not talked about historic interpretation. She said she has no hesitation in supporting option 3, but the others present her with lots of questions. Mr. Caravati said he is pretty much in the same place as Ms. Hamilton. He said he is closer to supporting option 2A, but cannot support option 1. The Ordinance Creating the Rugby Road/University Avenue/Venable Neighborhood Design Control District, option 1, was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. ORDINANCE : EXPANDING DOWNTOWN AND NORTH DOWNTOWN DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT Ms. Scala said that the ordinance will add properties to the existing design control district and will align the boundaries of the two ADC Districts with the boundary of the