Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br />enabling legislation to designate vacant property if there was an historic event or it has <br />archeological value that would warrant such designation. He said such properties have <br />not been traditionally individually designated in the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja acknowledged that he was Planning Director for the City when the <br />designations took place, but he said he has no legal conflict. He said he sympathizes with <br />the neighbors’ concerns. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said that the survey provided lists 6.83 acres, and he asked if that <br />implies that the intention had been to designate the entire property as historic, but Mr. <br />Tolbert said he does not know. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja recalled that the reason the property was subdivided was so the house <br />part could be designated as historic. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown asked how long a neighborhood designation would take in the best <br />case scenario, and Mr. Tolbert said a survey could take 30 days, National and State <br />designation could happen in December, though local designation could go in front of that. <br />He said if the neighborhood is on board it could go to the BAR in August and to Council <br />in October. He said there are no development proposals in line for the property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Edwards said she thinks that would be a better way to proceed and she would <br />support an historic overlay district. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said he thinks that is the most defensible option. <br /> <br /> Mr. Taliaferro said he would like to go ahead and complete the survey, which he <br />thinks is the best way to do it. He said he wants to do what the neighborhood wants, but <br />wants to be able to defend the designation. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said he wanted to be able to come in and argue that there was a <br />mistake made and we should just fix it, but he said it does not sound like that, he said it <br />sounds deliberate. He agreed we need to go through the neighborhood process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said he supports that path, but would hold the other option in case the <br />overlay district does not work. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council to move forward as soon as possible with the <br />neighborhood overlay district process. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE <br />: CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO VDOT FOR MEADOWCREEK <br />nd <br />PARKWAY (2 reading) <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that the ordinance grants a permanent easement to VDOT for City <br />owned property in Albemarle County. He said since the first reading of the ordinance <br />staff has had a conversation with VDOT and they recommended a slight language change <br />to give maintenance responsibility to the City for the entire intersection. He said staff has <br />reviewed this request and found it acceptable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja moved the amendment to the ordinance and Mr. Taliaferro seconded the <br />motion, and asked about the reason for the new language. <br /> <br /> Mr. O’Connell said that the City controls three sides of the intersection and will <br />be maintaining the bulk of it anyway, and this assures control by the City. <br /> <br /> The ordinance was amended by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. <br />Edwards, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Mr. Taliaferro. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled “AN ORDINANCE GRANTING PERMANENT AND <br />TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ACROSS CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN <br />ALBEMARLE COUNTY (MELBOURNE ROAD AREA) TO THE <br />COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (VDOT) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE <br /> <br />