Laserfiche WebLink
26 <br /> <br />adjacent property owners, at no cost to the owners. The <br />Planning Commission has recommended that the policy be <br />amended to include charging adjacent property owners for some <br />street closings. Mr. Chapman explained that in light of <br />staff reductions, it might be beneficial to continue to <br />convey property at no cost because of the City's inability to <br />maintain the streets. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman reviewed the proposed policy and stated <br />that he did not think it was consistent to close a street and <br />then require that a pedestrian or bike trail be maintained by <br />the property owner. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt the City should initiate <br />street closing in those instances where problems, especially <br />with maintenance, exist. Ms. Waters made a motion to adopt <br />the policy, striking the statement giving the City the right <br />to maintain a pedestrian or bike easement and adding that <br />application shall include a staff report which will address <br />liability for future maintenance as well as other <br />alternatives for continue public use of the land. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter seconded the motion, but stated that she <br />favored including the right.to maintain the pedestrian or <br />bike easement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano pointed out that closing the street might <br />benefit the property owner in ways other than actually using <br />the land, such as increasing the land available for setbacks, <br />etc. Mr. Toscano expressed concern about the force of the <br />statement requiring that the petitioners shall be required to <br />affirmatively show the public benefit, and recommended <br />substituting that consideration shall be given to public <br />benefit and removing the sentence stating that the property <br />becoming taxable does not alone constitute a public benefit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters accepted the amendments to her motion, <br />softening the public benefit language as recommended by Mr. <br />Toscano and keeping the right to require a pedestrian or bike <br />easement. The policy recommended by the Planning Commission, <br />as amended, was approved by Council, with Rev. Edwards absent <br />for the vote. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: <br />(2nd reading) <br /> <br />$3,600 - GRANT FOR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM <br /> <br /> The $3,600 appropriation of the grant for the Community <br />Supervision Program which was offered at the November 4th <br />meeting was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Ms. <br />Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: <br />None. Absent: Rev. Edwards. <br /> <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of <br />Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $3,600 is hereby <br />appropriated to expenditure account 13-162-062132 for the <br />project known as "Teens G.I.V.E." (Teens Getting Involved in <br />Volunteer Experiences), a program aimed at linking Community <br />Attention youth with ongoing community service projects. <br />Such appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $3,600 from <br />the Charlottesville-Albemarle Foundation. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: SUPPORTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND PROJECT FOR <br />U. VA. HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION <br /> <br /> Mr. Steve Blaine, attorney for the Health Services <br />Foundation, explained that the bond refunding is necessary <br />since the Foundation is requesting that certain properties <br />which had been used as collateral be released because the <br />improvements on the property are scheduled to be demolished <br />to allow street realignment which will then allow <br />construction of the Ambulatory Surgical Facility. <br /> <br />Mr. Toscano questioned whether the affirmative action <br /> <br /> <br />