1987-03-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff was asked to prepare a resolution supporting continued funding of the CDBG program for consideration at the next meeting. APPOINTMENTS: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS On motion by Mr. Barnes, Mr. F. Warren Martin was unanimously reappointed to serve a five-year term on the Building Code Board of Appeals. This term will expire on December 1, 1991. On motion by Mr. Towe, Ms. Carol Troxell was unanimously reappointed as the Downtown Charlottesville, Inc. representative, and Mr. John Allen was unanimously reappointed as the property owner representative to four-year terms on the Downtown Board of Architectural Review. These terms will expire on February 28, 1991. On motion by Dr. Hall, Ms. Joy Johnson was unanimously. appointed to serve a four-year term on the Social Services Advisory Board. This term will expire on June 30, 1990. On motion by Mrs. Gleason, Ms. Crystal Cain, Ms. Mary Claire Thorkildson, and Ms. Arriel Papovich were unanimously appointed to serve on the Youth Commission. Ms. Cain's term will expire on September 30, 1988 and Ms. Thorkildson and Ms. Papovich's terms will expire on September 30, 1990. APPEAL: DOWNTOWN BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: SIGNS AT 221 E. WATER STREET Mr. Hendrix stated that no information had been received from Mr. Lloyd Smith, the DBAR member who had represented the DBAR at the last meeting. Dr. Hall stated that he felt the matter should be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Buck stated that he felt Council should consider the matter out of fairness to the applicant. Mr. Buck stated that he felt the Downtown Board of Architectural Review should be allowed to review administrative decisions and made a motion to that effect. Mrs. Gleason seconded the motion and Council agreed that the DBAR should have the right to review administrative decisions by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Barnes, Mr. Buck, Mrs. Gleason, Mr. Towe. Noes: Noes. Abstaining: Dr. Hall. Mr. Buck stated that he felt the next issue to be decided was whether an appeal by adjoining property owners should be'allowed. Mr. Wiley stated that the Code is not clear about whether adjoining property owners can appeal site plans, though appeals have been heard in the past. Mr. Buck stated that he would favor allowing appeal by adjoining property owners. Responding to a question concerning other signs on the building in question, Mr. Huja stated that all parties had followed the same rules and regualtions with regard to obtaining a sign permit. Mr. Buck stated that he felt that if appeals are to be allowed, then the procedures will need to be changed. Mr. Buck stated that he felt another issue to be decided is whether the appeal by the property owners was made in a timely manner. Mr. Buck also noted that the permit issued