1994-09-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

91¸ (b) the alternate means of transportation, if any, to and from the restricted parking blocks being established; (c) the adverse impact that restricting parking in such blocks might have on nearby neighborhoods that do not have permit parking; and (d) the adverse impact that such restrictions may have on the non-residents of the proposed restricted parking block and their ability to find available parking near their place of work; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville that Grove Street from Spring Street to Paton Street is hereby designated as a restricted parking block. ORDINANCE: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTIONS 25-58 AND 25-61 OF ARTICLE HI OF CHAPTER 25, AND SECTIONS 30-98, 30-99 AND 30-101 OF ARTICLE IV, CHAPTER 30, OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE, 1990, AS AMENDED, RELATED TO THE REAL ESTATE g2qD RENTAL TAX i~ELIEF PROGRAMS" (2nd reading) APPEAL: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION - 222 SOUTH STREET Mr. Toscano stated that a representative for the appellant, the applicant, and the Board of Architectural Review would be allowed to make brief presentations. Ms. Rae Ely, attorney on behalf of Ms. Mary Gilliam, Ms. Gilliam's late husband, and other South Street residents, stated that the South Street residents are concerned about the threat of long-term damage to the historic area as a result of the proposed separate massive development proposed for the back yard of the property on 222 South Street. Ms. Ely stated that the BAR had originally voted against the proposed development at its September 20th meeting and then a new plan, with only minor changes, was presented at the BAR's October 18th meeting, violating, in Ms. Ely's opinion, the 10 day notice requirement since neighbors were not notified about the second consideration~ Ms. Ely stated that she thought Council should review the procedure followed by the BAR. Ms. Ely continued that there is inadequate access to the apartment when the driveway is blocked and there is no room near the site for heavy construction equipment. Ms. Ely stated that people have invested their life' savings to restore property on South Street and she thought Council's action on the matter would send a message to those considering similar historic preservations. Mr. William Park, 2207 Dominion Drive, developer of the project, stated that considerable planning went into the project in conjunction with the City's Urban Design Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Use Plan, and noted that the area is designated for mixed use. Mr. Park listed benefits of the proposed project: an historic building will be rehabilitated which will be occupied by the owners of the property; there will be an improvement in the tenants on the property; parking will be provided even though it is in a parking-exempt area; the property will be well landscaped; and a fire hose hookup will be installed on the property even thought it is not required. Mr. Park stated that no heavy construction equipment will be necessary for the construction. Mr. Park presented a petition supporting the project signed by four out of seven property owners on South Street and others in the immediate area. Mr. Park added that the Department of Historic Resources has written a letter supporting the procedure and decision by the BAR. Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, Chair of the Board of Architectural Review, explained that after the original BAR denial of the project, staff and the BAR worked with the developer and encouraged them to make modifications to the project. Mr. Wassenaar stated that he feels the key issue is whether the proposed building is appropriate to the housing and structures around the property. Mr. Wassenaar stated that the BAR's decision must be made on the basis of specific/concrete reasons and the issues of zoning and density are outside of the BAR's purview and should not be the reason for BAR denial. Mr. Wassenaar stated that he