2006-01-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

22 for two years after the zoning was approved. She said she believes the historic designation is the only tool the State gives us. She said she is committed to find ways to make this blunt tool more focused. She said she would be interested in creating incentives. She said she was hoping we could defer the ordinance in order to explore other tools such as trading density credit with other areas which is not currently allowed. She said that it will take longer than she expected to get a meaningful rating system, and because of that will not work for a deferral as it would be too long to wait. Mr. Caravati said he has no problem with option 3. He said the real issue is with thth the 14/15 Street portion. He said to make the neighborhood better, we need to bring partnerships together and offer incentives. He said option 1 does not do that. He make a substitute motion to approve option 2. Mr. Caravati’s motion died for lack of a second. The ordinance entitled “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 34 (ZONING), ARTICLE I (ADMINISTRATION), SECTION 34-1(1), AND ARTICLE II (OVERLAY DISTRICTS), SECTION 34-272 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, TO ADD A NEW MAJOR DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT (DISTRICT “H,” RUGBY ROAD- UNIVERSITY CIRCLE-VENABLE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT),” option 1, which was offered at the January 3 meeting, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch. Noes: Mr. Caravati. Abstaining: Mr. Schilling. nd ORDINANCE : AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE RE: PODS (2 reading) Mr. Tolbert said that Council has asked when the ordinance would be affected, and he explained that it will become effective upon adoption, but any time that a POD has been in a location up until its adoption will not be counted. Regarding questions about the signage, Mr. Tolbert said that the City Attorney has determined that the City’s existing sign ordinance applies and requirements of the area a POD is in will have to be met. Mr. Schilling asked about sign limitations in residential district, and Mr. Tolbert said he believes it is limited to two or three square feet. Mr. Brown suggested another change to the ordinance, that the permit fee be part of the normal fee schedule. Responding to a question from Mr. Schilling, Mr. Tolbert said that the temporary fee will be either $25 or $50 until it is brought back to Council to adopt a specific POD fee. Mr. Schilling said that the proposed ordinance allows a POD to be in a location for 30 days within a six month window, which means that within seven months, a POD could be in a location for 60 days. He said it might be more appropriate to say 60 days within a year. He said he feels this is a reasonable compromise as a longer time period may be needed when homes are being renovated. Mr. Schilling made a motion to amend the ordinance to change the time to 60 days within a year, and to add the fee reference change and sign provision. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion to amend the ordinance. Asked for clarification, Mr. Schilling said a year would mean twelve consecutive months. The ordinance was amended by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. The ordinance entitled “AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW SECTION 34- 1107 TO ARTICLE IX, AND AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 34-1200 OF ARTICLE X, OF CHAPTER 34 (ZONING) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF