2005-05-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 Mr. Schilling asked what the time component was in the sales agreement. Mr. Brown reviewed the schedule in the contract. Mr. Schilling asked what is the effect if the schedule has not been met. Mr. Brown said it goes to whether there is a material breach of the contract. He said there has been no extension of the contract thought there is a provision for that. Mr. Caravati said that selling the units for 80% of the median income is going in the right direction, but he noted that the Housing Strategy requires more. He made a motion to extend the contract to a closing date of May 2006. Mr. Brown said that Council does not need to extend the contract at this time. He said the issue before Council is the rezoning. He said the contract can be taken back to PHA and brought back to Council for the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Caravati withdrew his motion to extend the closing date of the contract. Mr. Caravati made a motion to approve the rezoning and Mr. Lynch seconded the motion, and the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 34-1 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, BY THE REZONING OF PARCEL 277.1 (LOTS E, F, G & H), CITY TAX MAP 4(1200 BLOCK OF JOHN STREET) FROM 4-2U TO PUD" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. Mr. Caravati said he would like to consider extending the contract at the second reading so there is no confusion. RESOLUTION: ACCEPTING AMHERST COMMONS AS CITY STREET Mr. Schilling said his concern is that it appears that there is a difference in this street acceptance than is normal. He said there is no offset by State funds because the street was not built to State standards. He said this was a questionable decision and taxpayers will have to subsidize it because Council decided to allow the street to be built not to State standards. Mr. Schilling made a motion to deny the resolution accepting Amherst Commons. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Ms. Hamilton asked if we can know whether VDOT will approve the waiver before we accept the street. Mr. Tolbert said staff has been told by VDOT that once we accept the street then they will make a decision. He said the amount the City could lose in lane mileage is $300 a year. He noted that the street width was a condition of Council approval of the PUD, and it was done with the understanding that the City would accept the street once it was brought up to standards. He said there was an analysis of the tax revenue based on the narrows streets and lots that showed that we would get more from that than street maintenance money. Mr. Caravati asked how the street will be plowed with cars parked on the street, and Mr. Tolbert said it will be a problem. He said parking is allowed on one side of the street. Mr. Caravati suggested that the street acceptance be deferred until the next meeting and Council agreed.