Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />Assembly decided that the direct recording electronic machines cannot be leased or <br />purchased. She said that the Electoral Board supported purchase of nine State certified <br />voting machines because of the high turnout predicted for the 2008 presidential election. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Taliaferro, seconded by Mr. Huja, Council approved the <br />Resolution Authorizing $48,500 for Purchase of Voting Machines by the following vote. <br />Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Mr. Taliaferro. Noes: None. <br /> <br />BE IT RESOLVED <br /> by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that <br />$48,500 is hereby transferred from currently appropriated funds in the capital projects <br />fund contingency account in the following manner: <br /> <br />Transfer From - $48,500 <br />Fund: 425 Project: CP-002 G/L Account: 599999 <br /> <br />Transfer To - $48,500 <br />Fund: 425 Project: P-00509 G/L Account: 599999 <br /> <br />TH <br />ORDINANCES <br />: DESIGNATING 134 10 STREET, N.W. (COCA COLA <br />BOTTLING WORKS); 722 PRESTON AVENUE (COCA COLA BOTTLING <br />COMPANY); PORTION OF 901 EMMET STREET (WACHOVIA BANK); AND <br />PORTION FO 946 GRADY AVENUE (FORMER MONTICELLO DAIRY <br />BUILDING) AS INDIVIDUALLY PROTECTED HISTORIC PROPERTIES” <br /> <br /> Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Preservation and Design Planner, said that the proposed <br />individually protected properties reflect a variety of building types. She said the Planning <br />Commission recommended approval of the IPPs by a four to three vote. Ms. Scala said <br />th <br />that the owner of the 10 Street property is opposed to the designation; the owner of the <br />Preston Avenue properties would like to have the three additions to the building removed <br />from the designation; the owner of the Wachovia building, which is proposed without the <br />canopy, is opposed to the designation; and the owner of the Monticello Dairy building is <br />opposed to all but the front part of the building being designated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris asked about the philosophical debate of designating only portion of <br />property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scala said some portions of the properties are not considered significant. She <br />said there was a mixture of opinion about that and there was a compromise. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris suggested that the properties be considered separately. <br /> <br /> Mr. Norris said he thinks it is a little arbitrary. He said he understands the <br />Monticello Dairy owner is opposed to the scale of the designation, and only supports <br />having the original part designated. He asked if there is a way to soften the designations <br />with incentives. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scala said the properties would be eligible for historic tax credits, and the <br />City could help with the applications. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja asked about the Monticello Dairy property owner’s concerns about the <br />designation, and Mr. Michael Morris, property manager, said the concern is maintaining <br />flexibility because of redevelopment prospects. He said the property consists of four <br />acres with great redevelopment potential. He said the owner wants the designation to be <br />the small original 1937 portion. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown asked if the owner opposed having the property in front of the building <br />designated, and Mr. Joe Cochran, representing the owner of the Monticello Dairy, said <br />no. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said he looks at this in two contexts. 1) Are we making someone <br />designate their property? He said we cannot have designation be only voluntary and <br />protect property. 2) Is it a burden? He said he does not think so if someone has a good <br /> <br />