Laserfiche WebLink
293 <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he prefers to start with the program proposed, though he might <br />favor increasing the amount of the savings. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said that state law does not speak to being able to offer an <br />abatement higher than the actual amount spent on renovations. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr~ Cox, Mr. Huja said that applicants would <br />apply for the program when they get their building permit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty said she would be interested in expanding the abatement to ten <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that in order for the hou~ strategy to be effective, the City will <br />need many more of these kinds of programs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he thinks the marketing for the program needs to be more <br />aggressive, noting that the majority of those getting building permits are general <br />contractors, not the property owners. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Gouldman said that the program <br />would apply to residential property located on a commercial site, but stressed that it <br />would only apply to actual residential property. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox made a motion to approve the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Daugherty requested that "additions" be added to the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman said he needs to look at enabling legislation to be sure that <br />"additions" can be added, and said that the ordinance can be amended on second reading. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox noted that the projects that the City worked on with Piedmont Housing <br />Alliance involved demolitions and that may be another subject for a different kind of <br /> <br />program~ <br /> <br />Mr. Huja said staff could look at those opportunities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked about mechanisms that could be used to assure that the <br />assessments for people in existing homes do not go up when new buildings are <br />constructed in their neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati seconded the ordinance entitled "AN ORD1NA2XlCE AMENDFNG <br />AND REORDAINING ARTICLE V OFO CHAPTER 30 OF THE <br />CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE, 1990, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW <br />DIVISION TO ARTICLE V, TO BE NUMBERED SECTIONS 30-155 THROUGH 30- <br />160 RELATING TO TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR REHABILITATED RESIDENTIAL <br />STRUCTURES" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: ALIGNING LANGUAGE ON PARKING SIGNS AND PARKING <br />ORDINANCE (2na reading) <br /> <br /> Mr. Cmuldman explained that he has two small amendments to offer for the <br />ordinance: in Section 15.139 add "in a block on a public street" and in Section 15.t40, <br />delete "or outside the hours specified," as suggested by Mr. Yellott. Referring to <br />comments made by Mr. Yellott earlier in the meeting, Mr. Gouldman said that the <br />ordinance delegating authority to the City Manager Fas been on the hooks for 25 years <br />and has never been challenged. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Gouldman said that Council <br />could take action to change parking regulations, and added that the City Manager has <br />always kept Council apprised of any changes. <br /> <br /> <br />