2004-10-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Hamilton noted that the balloting results showed the walking trails to be the number one priority, and asked if that could be taken as a recommendation for phasing in the project with those being done first. Ms. Firehock said that the trails could be started on as they are not impacted by the Meadowcreek Parkway. Responding to a question from Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Firehock said that pullover points on the Parkway within the Park were not considered by the Committee. Mr. Lynch said this is the first he has heard of the utility relocation issues. Mr. Will Rieley, consultant for the project, said there are sewer lines in the proposed location for the pond and overhead utility lines that will be impacted by the Parkway. Mr. Caravati said there should not be any uncertainty about the Meadowcreek Parkway being built, and considers the land around the Parkway to be a linear park. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Rieley said a pedestrian bridge is proposed to get people from one side of the Parkway to the other. Mr. Caravati noted that the northern park land will be in the County, and he requested that the Committee speak to the issue about how it will be linked. Mr. Caravati asked about the new entrance on Melbourne Road. Mr. Rieley said that VDOT agrees in principle with going ahead with the pond and doing the entrance in conjunction with that. Mr. Lynch noted that undergrounding of utilities is expensive and he would rather VDOT put money into park acquisition. Mr. Rieley said that VDOT has money in their budget for utility relocation. Responding to a question from Dr. Brown about the land on the northern part of the Parkway, Mr. Rieley said that it is defined on the map as a linear park and he feels that is the correct image. Mr. Caravati said Council needs to deal with the issue of Parks and Recreation priorities before we are fully involved in the budget. REPORT: RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM Mr. Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services, explained that in 2000 Council adopted a ordinance that granted tax rebates for renovations valued at 20% or more of the assessment of the house for owner occupied, single family residences that are at least 25 years old. He said the ordinance sunsets in 2006. He asked for guidance from Council about whether they want to continue the program, and if so, should the program be extended to include houses with accessory apartments. Mr. Tolbert noted that this program was begun when there was little investment in renovations in the City and prior to low interest rates. Ms. Hamilton said she is generally supportive of the program if it is benefiting young couples. She asked to what degree we have assurances that the program is not benefiting real estate developers or those that are "well heeled." Mr. Tolbert said that those in more expensive houses are taking advantage of the program, but developers do not qualify as it requires the homes to be owner occupied. Ms. Hamilton said we might want to consider putting a cap on the value of the properties that qualify.