2006-05-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 6. Maintenance: Tenant shall maintain the carousel, fence and Property in a neat and clean condition at all times. Trash and refuse shall be promptly removed and disposed of by Tenant in a lawful manner. As part of its normal Mall maintenance activities, the Landlord will remove trash, debris, leaves and snow from the space surrounding the carousel, but will not remove such from the carousel itself, and Landlord will maintain the brick located within the Property. 7. Surrender of Premises: At the end of the Lease the Tenant shall surrender the Property and shall restore the Property to its original condition and appearance, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The Tenant shall remove the carousel, fence and all fixtures or other personal property or equipment, and shall repair any damage to the Property resulting from such removal. Other Terms and Conditions: except as modified above, the Lease shall also be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the draft lease that was advertised and included in the materials provided to Council for consideration at the public hearing conducted on May 15, 2006. TH APPEAL : BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: 14 STREET (SADLER COURT) CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Mr. Fred Wolf, Chairman of the Board of Architectural Review, explained that the BAR denied a certificate of appropriateness for Sadler Court. He said a preliminary review was held in March and there were issues with materials, design, parking, site layout and massing. He said the applicant made modest changes to the materials. He said the building design was previously used in Farmville and Harrisonburg. He said the BAR felt that a large number of issues remained after the formal review. He noted that the project was well under way when the design control district in this area was adopted. Mr. Wolf reviewed the guidelines considered by the BAR. Mr. Schilling asked if there was a representative from a member of the BAR at the meeting who did not vote against the certificate of appropriateness, and Mr. Wolf said no. Mr. Schilling said he feels that is unfortunate and unfair and he is troubled by that. He said in the future we should have both sides represented. Mr. George McCallum, attorney representing the applicant, Sadler Court Ltd. Partnership, said that the property is .8 acres and is in the University high density zoning district. He said the proposed project is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood. He said that the design of the building was adapted for this site. He said that the site plan process began last summer before it was designated as a design control district. He said that a listing of changes from Neighborhood Development Services was sent to the applicant on December 13, 2005. He said that the design control district was st approved by Council in January of 2006, and on January 31 the applicant was advised by e-mail that the property was in the design control district and a certificate of appropriateness was needed. He said the applicant met with the BAR and modifications were made to the building. He said the BAR issues would involve starting the project over. He said concerns about the entrance to the parking were addressed. He said that subsequent to the BAR meeting the architected worked on the design. He said Council can put conditions and requirements on approval of the certificate of appropriateness, but the applicant is not in a position to rethink the site and the building on the site. Mr. Caravati asked how many units are allowed on the site by right, and Mr. McCallum said 65. Ms. Hamilton asked how the discussion of the materials was addressed in the revision. Mr. Rick Funk, architect for the project, said that he met with the owner and revisions were made to the materials.