My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-09-18
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
2006-09-18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2007 10:21:39 AM
Creation date
7/25/2007 10:21:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
9/18/2006
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> 12 <br /> Mr. Taliaferro asked what the value of the collection is, and Mr. Svetz said it is <br />currently being appraised. <br /> <br /> Ms. Brand said her grandmother never sold any of her art and did not paint for the <br />market. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Dr. Brown, Mr. O’Connell said the original <br />concept of the Percent for Art fund was that it be used to purchase art for City buildings. <br />He said the money has been accumulating and has only been spent recently on art from <br />the Art in Place program. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hamilton said that generally she thinks it would be a good idea to give an <br />independent panel purview over the Percent for Art funds. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said we could start with having the paintings digitized before doing <br />anything else. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said he thinks having people on a panel would be a good idea. He said <br />in this case, it is not just art, but documenting history. He said he is concerned about the <br />number of paintings, and would like to share the wealth. He said he is inclined to match <br />the grant with an equal amount of City funding and see if creative minds can come up <br />with strategies to come up with the rest of the needed funds. He said we should get other <br />people to invest. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hamilton said she does not have an objection to investing in the <br />conservatorship and preservation of the collection. She said they were done for the City <br />and are considered a City collection, but she does not know if the City is an appropriate <br />entity for this. She said there are still the questions of where the collection will be <br />displayed and how they will be used. She said she would feel better if there was a firmer <br />program. She said she thinks the collection is well worth investing in. She wondered <br />about what will happen to the collection as administrations come and go. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he thinks Ms. Hamilton’s concerns about the programming are <br />valid. He said he is concerned about where we are going as the Percent for Art funds <br />were originally for art for City buildings. He said he has questions about what is the <br />mission for the City, and he does not feel we should make that decision tonight. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro said he is in favor of preserving the collection. He said they would <br />be better stored than left to deteriorate. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hamilton made a motion to approve the City’s matching funds as proposed in <br />the resolution, and asked that the programming be firmed up. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro seconded the motion and the appropriation of the $27,600 grant <br />and $41,116 of Percent for Art funds for Preservation of the Frances Brand Art <br />Collection was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Romney Brand, grandson of Frances Brand, said a Councilor had questioned <br />whether the paintings were art, he said they are art as well as a part of Charlottesville’s <br />history and culture. He said a unique opportunity is being presented to the City. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE <br />: REZONING 1000-1002 GROVE STREET TO PUD <br /> <br /> Mr. Brian Haluska, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that a <br />th <br />joint public hearing was held on July 11. He said the Planning Commission focused on <br />the density issue and voted 4 – 2 for denial. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mark Saunders, applicant, reviewed the proposal and said he feels the <br />property is a good candidate for a PUD. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.