1989-01-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

257 $13,000, with Charlottesville's isharing being $3,770. Mr. Hendrix stated that MSo Martha Hogshire~has been hired by the Planning District Commission for the position. Responding to a question from Rev.. Edwards about what the City has done in the past, Mr. Hendrix explained that a staff member, particularly the-City Attorney, has spent some time monitoring the General AssemblY, ibut not as extensively as proposed by the Planning District Commission. Mr. Hendrix added that the City has also not had such an extensive legislative package in prior years. On motion by Rev. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Towe, the Council agreed to participate in the employment of a legislative liaison, with Mr. Buck abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest (Ms. Hogshire is the wife of Mr. Buck's law partner). APPROPRIATION: $3,770 - LEGISLATIVE LIAISON- On motion by Rev. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Towe, the appropriation of $3,770 for the employment of a legislative liaison through the Thomas Jefferson~Planning District Commission was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. STAFF REPORT: RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE: LITTLE LEAGUE SIGN REQUEST Mr. Hendrix stated that following the Council's referral to the Planning Commission.of the Little League request to place commercial signs at ~the Quarry Field for which~the Little League would collect rent, the Planning Commission voted to not recommend that the signs be allowed for the following reasons: 1) The Planning Commission has serious concerns about first and fourteenth amendment issues which would likely be present in any zoning amendment solution to this request.~ They feel that such issues could not be adequately addressed; 2) Under the present zoning ordinance such signs would be considered off premises commercial advertising which is not legal. They have been trying to eliminate off-premise signs for some time now; 3) Any provision that would be made in the zoning ordinance to allow such signs would also likely apply to many other types of off premises commercial advertising ~such as billboards. They have been working for a number of years to prevent such signs from being placed; 4)This would not be an appropriate location for signs since it is a neighborhood park located in a residential zone and area. It should be noted that there are other Little League ballfields located in residentially zoned parks in or near neighborhoods; 5)The approval of such signs for one facility could set a precedent and open us up for similar ~requests in-other parks and facilities; 6) The specific request would also involve more signs in numbers than the zoning ordinance allows and larger signs than the zoning ordinance allows; 7) Recent litigation involving billboards and commercial versus non-commercial advertising in the City has been settled. This settlement could be jeopardized by allowing such signs in Little League ballparks; 8) Currently the Little League fields and other youth sport organization fields are located on public land in public parks which would not be an appropriate location for commercial advertising due to difficulties with first ~ amendment issues and'the .apparent regulation of content by the Little League organization; and 9)The location of such signs would create visual clutter in areas where the public can and should be protected from such clutter. Mr. Towe noted that he was concerned that the Planning Commission did not hold a public hearing ~on the matter as had been requested by the Council. Mr. Towe added that the parks originally allowed signs. Mr. Towe stated that while he would like the st~ff to continue to look for ways that the