2007-01-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 Ms. Hamilton said that part of her is interested in phasing in, but there is also the issue of making an immediate impact. She said she thinks Council has enough information tonight in general, and she would like to move forward with a vote, but also get more information. She thanked Mr. Norris for bringing the proposal forward, and said she thinks we have a workable proposal. Dr. Brown said that whatever we do is not going to occur in a vacuum, and said he would like the City Manager to come back with specifics about what we need to do. He said he feels we definitely need to support CRHA. He said the developer contributions are predicated on our ability to raise those funds, and while he thinks it is a good idea, he is not sure it is realistic. He said he would like to revisit the issue of whether we can do more with our tax abatement program for low income homeowners to help keep people in their homes. He suggested working in concert with the County regarding the 25% transit room tax set aside and asked staff to meet with County staff and Councilors to talk with Supervisors. He also suggested that the public attend and speak on the issue at meetings of the Board of Supervisors. He said this should be done as a community wide effort. He agreed with Mr. Taliaferro’s comments, and said we need to look at the budget as a whole and the possibility of phasing, but he would like to pursue the proposal. Mr. Norris said he agrees with Mr. Lynch about the need to look at the wage side, and said we need to do both. He said we need to put more pressure on U. Va. for on- grounds housing. He said he supports City/County cooperation and the proposal is structured to create more opportunities, thus the Community Foundation involvement. He said he does not have a problem putting the priority on City residents. Mr. Norris made a friendly amendment to maintain the CDBG review, the same criteria and the same group, while still reducing red tape. Mr. Norris said he is getting mixed signals about the developer contributions, but anything over $150,000 would be a welcome increase. He said he thinks these funds can be created, but perhaps not this year if we do not get the necessary legislation. He said he agrees with the need to expand the tax abatement program. He said he also agrees with Ms. Hamilton about general agreement of the proposal, and tasking staff to look at funding proposals and a way to approach Albemarle County. Mr. Lynch said that much of the developer contributions the County receives is because the County created the need for developers to seek rezonings, but the City rezoned broad sections, which he said could be reduced. He said we should get specific development proposals from CRHA before authorizing any new funding. Mr. Norris said one of the reasons funding for CRHA was put off until FY 09 is that CRHA has just started its Strategic Planning process. Mr. O’Connell said he will come back with alternatives for Council. He said this issue is obviously a priority for Council. He suggested that a letter be sent to the County, but suggested that we should let them decide where their funding would come from rather than us saying it should be from their transient room taxes. Mr. Lynch said it may be more effective for the County to hear from advocates of the proposal, many of whom are County residents. APPEAL : APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TREE AT 420 PARK STREET Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner in Neighborhood Development Services, said that 420 Park Street is a contributing historic property. She said the property owner is seeking to remove a large ash tree. She said the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) considered the request in October, but deferred the matter because they said they had insufficient information. She said the applicant subsequently submitted a letter from his arborist stating that the tree was decayed and could no longer be maintained. She said the BAR took the matter up again in November, but the applicant chose not to submit additional information as requested by the BAR, so the BAR voted to deny the request to