Laserfiche WebLink
200 <br /> <br />trees three times and had consistently refused the request. <br />Mr. Moje stated that while the cottage is not in itself a <br />grand or architecturally significant structure, it is a <br />dependency building common in its time and one of the oldest <br />and very few remaining in the City. Mr. Moje stated that <br />the fact that it is in bad condition reflects the fact that <br />it is a living piece of history which has undergone changes <br />throughout the years. Mr. Moje stated that the BAR also felt <br />that the age and character of the trees was significant to <br />that area and the property provided a transition piece <br />between the 14th Street Mall and Venable neighborhood. Mr. <br />Moje stated that the BAR had felt that an additional problem <br />was the size of the development proposed for the site. Mr. <br />Moje stated that the BAR had repeatedly indicated its <br />willingness to be flexible with the developers, but did not <br />feel that a concerted effort had been made to develop the <br />property with the constraints of the cottage and the trees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe questioned what type of development the BAR <br />felt would be economically feasible for the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Moje stated that the BAR had never been presented <br />with a definitive proposal for the property with the <br />restraints and with the understanding that certain variances <br />would be considered. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Towe regarding <br />whether the property was the original site of the cottage <br />was significant, Mr. Moje replied that he did not believe it <br />was. Mr. Moje stated that staff had originally speculated <br />that the cottage had been relocated because the original <br />records were not available, but upon further investigation <br />felt that its present location was the original site. Mr. <br />Moje noted that the owner of~the property had had the option <br />of rebuilding Hillcrest Apartments exactly as they had been <br />after the fire, but that this option has probably expired <br />at this time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, recommended that the <br />Council take the matter under advisement and continue the <br />matter until the October 17th meeting which would allow time <br />for an inspection of the site and for staff to make a <br />recommendation regarding the matter. Mr. Gouldman stated <br />that the staff's recommendation would include what <br />determined fair market value. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council to carry the matter <br />over to the October 17th meeting. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: $4,296 - LITTER CONTROL GRANT (2nd reading) <br /> <br /> The ~4,296 appropriation of the Litter Control Grant <br />which had been offered at the September 6th meeting was <br />approved by the following vote. Ayes: Rev. Edwards, Mr. <br />Towe, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: None. Absent: Mr. <br />Buck. <br /> <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the cOuncil of the City of <br />Charlottesville, Virginia~ that the sum of $4,296 is hereby <br />appropriated from the grants fund to expenditure account <br />~11-042-052030-43109 for use by the Charlottesville- <br />Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CAC3) in recycling and <br />litter control projects for the period July 1, 1988, through <br />June 30, 1989. Such appropriation shall be subject to the <br />receipt of a like amount in revenue from the Virginia <br />Division of Litter Control. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION: APPROVING CDBG PROPOSAL FOR HOUSING FOR THE BLIND <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he would abstain due to a <br />conflict of interest. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendrix stated that the previous year's CDBG budget <br /> <br /> <br />