Laserfiche WebLink
99 <br /> <br />of the lots could be set aside for below market price houses, <br />perhaps to be developed by the Charlottesville Housing <br />Foundation or Habitat for Humanity. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Waters, Mr. Hendrix <br />stated that there are approximately 35 lots on the site and <br />private developers would be encouraged to make proposals for <br />development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned whether the adjacent neighborhood <br />was flexible about size of the lots and detached versus <br />attached housing. Mr. Schmidt stated that the original <br />proposal was for single family houses and concern has been <br />expressed about higher density housing because of the <br />resulting increased school population and traffic. Mr. <br />Schmidt stated that he did not think there was a strong <br />consensus for one option and felt the neighborhood would like <br />to see a variety of options for the development. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters recommended that the request for proposals be <br />shared with the Belmont Neighborhood Board. <br /> <br /> Mr, T°scano stated that he felt the major emphasis <br />shOuld be on single family detached housing with a design <br />that would fit into the neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix reconurLended that proposals be sought which <br />would require private development, would set a maximum sales <br />price, lot size and density. Mr. Hendrix continued that if <br />no proposals are made to meet these criteria then the City <br />might reconsider the requirements or ask developers what <br />could work on the property. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council to have the CIDA move <br />forward as outlined by Mr. Hendrix. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: ORDINANCE IMPOSING PENALTIES ON PROPERTY OWNERS FOR <br />REPEATED CODE VIOLATIONS <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he had requested that the City <br />Attorney draft the proposed ordinance after hearing about <br />problems with noise, weeds and drugs in neighborhoods and <br />added that he felt the only recourse seems to be to take <br />action against the property owner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman stated that the ordinance would hold the <br />property owner responsible for more than five noise, weed, or <br />trash violations within a six months period, the penalty <br />being up to a $1,000 fine. Mr. Gouldman reviewed the legal <br />remedies concerning Code and drug violations currently <br />available. Mr. Gouldman stated that legal issues involving <br />the proposed ordinance revolve around public versus private <br />nuisance. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Hendrix <br />stated that notices are required to be sent for trash <br />violations which means that trash is generally picked up <br />during the City's next scheduled pickup. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman explained that the state mandates the <br />notice requirement, but added that the trash ordinance does <br />need fine tuning. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she thought the proposed <br />ordinance would be reasonable if property owners were <br />notified after each violation. <br /> <br /> It was agreed that a public hearing on the proposed <br />ordinance would be held on April 20th. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he would need to know why <br />another ordinance should be adopted when remedies exist in <br />the state code. <br /> <br /> <br />