2006-06-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 1. The proposed maximum size limitation of 25 square feet for each wall sign, as provided in the comprehensive signage plan, is reasonable and appropriate; harmonious with the character and the approved architectural design of the exterior of the building, and compatible with the Downtown Architectural Design Control District; and, 2. The inclusion of the proposed logo on the wall sign is harmonious with the character and the approved architectural design of the exterior of the building, and compatible with the Downtown Architectural Design Control District; provided that the color of the logo matches the lettering on the wall sign (nugold stainless steel with brushed finish), rather than the proposed red or burgundy logo which is not compatible with and detracts from the overall character of the approved building design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the Council for the City of Charlottesville that a certificate of appropriateness is hereby approved for the proposed wall sign at The Melting Pot Restaurant, subject to the following conditions: (1) the wall signshall be no larger than 25 square feet; and (2) the color of the logo on the wall sign shall match the color of the lettering on the sign, as approved in the comprehensive sign plan. APPEAL : BAR DECISION RE: DEMOLITION OF 1001-1009 WERTLAND STREET Ms. Scala said that the unanimous decision of the BAR to deny demolition of three contributing structures on Wertland Street is being appealed. She said no structural report was submitted and the argument for demolition was based on the University zoning. Ms. Scala said staff recommend that if the applicant asks that he be allowed to relocate the structures that it be denied or sent back to the BAR. She said the buildings are well preserved handsome buildings. Ms. Tara Boyd, attorney representing John and Michael Crafaik, owners of the property, said that the decision was originally to appeal the demolition denial, but said they are now offering to donate and move the houses. She said the BAR has limited purview and could not approve moving the properties. She said preservation is important, but she said there is high demand for student housing. She said these houses are cut off from the rest of the district by new construction and they have been extensively modified. She said they are very common vernacular styles and are not necessarily unique in Charlottesville. She said they could be accommodated in another site. She said she thinks there is public interest to meet the need for student housing in this area. She said a practical solution would be to move the houses close by. She said there would be tax benefits to building student housing and less traffic impact. She said she hopes to accommodate competing needs. Ms. Hamilton asked if a site to move the houses to has been identified, and Ms. Boyd said no. th Dr. Brown asked if there has been direct contact with the 10 and Page neighborhood, and Ms. Boyd said there has been contact, but not with the entire neighborhood. Mr. Crafaik said he has talked to surrounding neighbors. th Mr. Gate Pratt, architect for the project and resident of the 10 and Page neighborhood, said that the project was presented to the neighborhood association officers. th Mr. John Gaines, a resident of the 10 and Page neighborhood, said that the architect presented the plan to a few people in the neighborhood association, but it was not presented to the entire neighborhood association. Mr. Fred Wolf, Chairman of the BAR, said he met informally with the applicant about relocating the structures. He said quite simply that the houses are significant in the context of the street.