My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1991-05-06
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1991
>
1991-05-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2001 6:36:18 PM
Creation date
12/18/2001 6:09:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
5/6/1991
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
197 <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he would pursue the matter with <br />the Chairman of the Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he felt it was time for the <br />Planning Commission to take the matter up. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF CITYWIDE ZONING MAP, ZONING ORDINANCE <br />TEXT AMENDMENT, AND AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards noted that the public hearing was being <br />held jointly with the Planning Commission and Council and <br />stated that the main issue to be addressed was the proposed <br />R-lA zoning. Rev. Edwards explained that adjustments may <br />need to be made at a later date'to resolve any <br />inconsistencies in the proposal. Rev. Edwards noted that the <br />version of the ordinance advertised in the public hearing <br />notice would allow accessory apartments in units of 2,000 <br />square feet or larger and a duplex in units of 2,400 square <br />feet or larger~ on the condition that the property owner <br />reside on the site. <br /> <br />The public hearing was opened. <br /> <br /> Mr. Derek Van der Linde of 602 Shamrock Road, President <br />of the Johnson Village Neighborhood Association, expressed <br />support for the R-lA zoning as a means to protect <br />neighborhood integrity. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tomas Rahall of 320 14th Street and a third year <br />University of Virginia Architecture student, stated that he <br />felt the proposed downzoning raises more questions than it <br />answers and would,cause students and low income people to <br />suffer. Mr. Rahall encouraged the City to seek other <br />alternatives such-~as~enforcing~the existing code <br />requirements, supporting housing organizations, and <br />developing a regional housing strategy. Mr. Rahall stated <br />that contrary to popular ~opinion, students are concerned <br />about the community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Adam Spence of 923-A~Cherry Avenue, representing the <br />University of Virginia Student Council, stated that he felt <br />the R-lA zoning was a well intentioned plan but would cause <br />rents to increase. Mro' ~iSpence stated~that he did not think <br />the City should use students'and the poor to get back at the <br />University of Virginia for not providing on-grounds housing. <br />Mr. Spence recommended that the City enforce the current <br />zoning ordinance and noise ordinance and encourage high <br />density housing near the University of Virginia. <br /> <br /> Mr. Chris Beauchamp of 1400 Short 18th Street, stated <br />that the R-lA zoning would affect his plans~for the future by <br />reducing the value of his property. Mr. Beauchamp explained~ <br />that he had purchased his house with the intention to install <br />an apartment to supplement his income in the future when he <br />retires. Mr. Beauchamp recommended that accessory apartments <br />of up to one third of the space be allowed in units of 1,200 <br />or more square feet of floor space on the condition that the <br />property is owner occupied. <br /> <br /> Mr. Stan Tatum of 540 Park Street, representing the <br />Urban Design Committee, stated that the Committee had <br />endorsed the concept of height~and bulk -standards as proposed <br />for the B-5 district with the following comments: agreement <br />with the 40' limit in ,height for-the street wa.ll; agreement <br />with the rear stepback from adjacent residential areas as <br />outlined in the draft; recommendation of a 50' stepback <br />instead of a 25' stepback above the 40' street wall along the <br />frontage, measured from the property line; and endorsed the <br />height and bulk regulations for the B-4 district with the <br />following comments:-~ agreement with the 25' stepback above <br />the 40' street: wall-as prouosed; addition of a requirement of <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.