Laserfiche WebLink
82 <br /> <br /> With regard to design and location, Councilors agreed that the Board of Architectural <br />Review should continue to have authority in this areas and requested that the <br />recommendations be sent to them for their consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman noted that the recommendation to ticket vendors who violate the <br />regulations would require an appeals process and enabling state legislation would be needed. <br /> <br />It was agreed that the existing enforcement process would continue to be used. <br /> <br /> Ms, Slaughter requested that an update on enforcement be provided by the zoning <br />administrator in six months and suggested that the need to get special event designation if <br />rules are to be waived be made clear to vendors. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty stated that she thought itwas unnecessary to review cafe permits more <br />frequently than three years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman recommended that all cafe permit be approved on the same cycle. <br /> <br />Mr. Toscano stated that he was inclined to allow 5 year cafe permits. <br />The majority of Council agreed that the existing 3 year permits should be maintained. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano expressed concern that the cafe permit fee recommended was so high that <br />it would discourage cafes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever asked about the rationale for the disparity between the kiosk fee and <br />proposed cafe fee and Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt the difference was justified because <br />the cafes are extensions of existing restaurants and the kiosk would be the only business <br />location. <br /> <br /> Councilors asked the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance which would charge $3 <br />per square feet for cafes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman was asked to review the kiosk recommendations to see if any ordinance <br />change was necessary. <br /> <br /> It was agreed that no action would be taken on the newspaper boxes at this time, but <br />would be flagged for future consideration by Council to see if the cluttered appearance <br />improves when the news kiosk opens, and Council also agreed that no action should be taken <br />regarding musicians. <br /> <br /> Ms. Joan Woodfolk, a downtown vendor, expressed concern about the proposed <br />increase in the vending fee, and added that she thought it would discourage young people <br />from going into business. Ms. Woodfolk stated that vendors have experienced problems with <br />harassment by other merchants. <br /> <br /> Mr. Charles McGuinness, a downtown vendor, stated that he thought the most fair way <br />to charge vending fees would be to base the amount due on the total sales. <br /> <br />REPORT: WATER STREET PARKING GARAGE ART <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja stated that 14 proposals had been received for art for the Water Street <br />parking garage and a finalist was recommended by the Urban Design Committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she did not think the recommended sculpture should be <br />commissioned and would prefer that art be chosen that will endure and is more specific to <br />Charlottesville. Ms. Slaughter stated that she was in the minority onthe Urban Design <br />Committee in voting against the sculpture. Ms. Slaughter stated that options include <br />reserving the funds and adding to them in the future, putting out a request for additional <br />proposals, or looking at other specific art. Ms. Slaughter stated that she would like to select <br />something that is more appropriate and particular to Charlottesville. <br /> <br /> <br />