1997-01-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

234 retrofit them or get new fixtures. The Urban Design Committee approved changing the heads of the lights and that was communicated to the developer. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Ms. Mueller said that the existing lights are no longer waterproof and the new heads ordered will allow putting on a fixture to keep them waterproof. Ms. Mueller said that the long-term rehabilitation of the mall needs to be looked at, and lights can be included in this discussion. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, said that Council should consider the appeal de novo, as originally considered by the BAR, using the design criteria. Ms. Richards expressed concern that the developer did not follow- procedure, and said she feels he should have known that BAR approval was necessary before installing the lights. Ms. Richards said that she does not object to the lights themselves and feels that all of the lighting on the mall needs to be revisited, but she feels that it is important to uphold the procedures in light of a new district being established. Ms. Daugherty made a motion to deny the appeal and Mr. Cox seconded the motion. Mr. Cox said that he thinks this matter is more than just a procedural issue, and is an unfortunate trend of a private interest not liking the outcome of a public decision. Mr. Cox said he thinks Council should continue to support business interest, but also has to support established standards~ Mr. Toscano noted that the appeal to Council is part of the process and a message should not be sent that one's fight to an appeal should not be exercised. Mr. Cox said an appeal is appropriate at the time of denial, not after installation or construction. Mr. Toscano said he feels a decision should be made based on established criteria, and while the lights are appealing, they are not compatible with the surrounding area. Ms~ Slaughter agreed that the lights are incompatible and based on the criteria, she will reject the appeal. The appeal of the BAR decision concerning the lights at the Charlottesville Ice Park was unanimously denied. ORDINANCE: ESTABLISHING WEST MAIN STREET ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT (2nd reading) Ms. Richards made a motion to amend the ordinance to reference preparation of the design guidelines by the BAR, to establish demolition standards for West Main Street, and to include a sunset clause if on February 28, t 998 guidelines have not been adopted by Council. Ms. Daugherty seconded Ms. Richards' amendment. Mr. Cox said he shares the interest in establishing guidelines that deal with the variety of buildings on West Main Street, but said that he does not understand the demolition amendment as the BAR rules on all demolitions in the districts. Mr. Toscano said it may be good to have differem criteria for demolition. Mr. Cox said he does not think there is a need to create different levels of criteria, adding that ranking within a design district is antithetical to creating one. Ms. Slaughter said she agrees with the amendment except for the demolition phrase.