Laserfiche WebLink
175 <br /> <br />come up for review. Ms. Richards said she would tike to reduce the subjectivity of the <br />process and thereby merchants' fear. <br /> <br /> The ordinances emitted ".&N ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE <br />DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 34-15 OF THE ZONING <br />ORDINANCE OF THE. CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS <br />AMENDED, BY ADDING A FOURTH MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN <br />CONTROL DISTRICT, DISTRICT D, KNOWN AS THE WEST MAIN STREET <br />ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT" and "AN ORDINANCE <br />AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 34-567(a)(1) OF THE CODE OF THE <br />CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROPERTIES <br />PROTECTED IN THE ARCHITECTLqLa~L DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICTS" were <br />offered and carded over to the November 4th meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: AMENDING SIGN ORDIN.&NCE ON DOWNTOWN MALL <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja explained that Council previously approved signs (18" x 24") for businesses <br />on side streets between Market and Water, and then was requested to approve signs for <br />businesses beyond Market and Water Streets. The Planning Commission recommended that <br />signs (5" x 18") be available to those merchants. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Mr. Huja said the Planning Commission <br />considered making all signs the same size, but it was too late in the process. <br /> <br /> Responding to questions from Mr. Cox and Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Huja said changing the <br />size of the previously approved signs would result in some expense to both the city and <br />merchants as five signs are currently being fabricated. <br /> Mr. Cox said it is not sensible to have a multi-month process that does not have a <br />solution with which all agree. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said she would like to see the signs to get an idea of how the <br />proliferation of signs would look. <br /> <br /> On motion by Ms. Daugherty, seconded by 1Vh-. Toscano, the ordinance entitled "AN <br />ORDINANCE AMENDING A~ND REORDAINING SECTION 34-779 OF ARTICLE XX <br />RELATING TO DIRECTIONAL MALL SIGNS FOR BUSINESSES" was carried over to <br />the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br /> It was suggested that Councilors view the signs prior to the second reading of the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />ORD/NANCE: TAXICAB - DISPLAY OF RATES <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman explained that the state requires that rates be posted on the exterior and <br />interior of taxi cabs. Also proposed in the ordinance are two changes that deal with <br />surcharges that are made after a cab goes a certain distance or slows down below 12 mph. <br /> <br /> Mr. Weston Diggs, Director of Product and Industry Regulation for the state, explained <br />that there is inconsistency in how rates are measured in Charlottesville, and the meters in <br />Charlottesville have not been checked out in almost two years, though an annual check is <br />required by the state. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bud Treakle, attorney representing a number of independent cab owners and <br />operators, explained that a surcharge was adopted during the gas shortages of the early <br />1970's to compensate for empty return trips, and the ordinance attempts to correct this <br />situation. Mr. Treakle said that many clients will have to install new meters or chips, and are <br />concerned with the cost and lost time to reach compliance. 1~. Treakle recommended that a <br />March 1 deadline to comply be added as a compromise. <br /> <br /> <br />