My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-04-02
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1984
>
1984-04-02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2003 8:22:43 PM
Creation date
8/26/2003 5:47:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
4/2/1984
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ORDINANCE: <br />ANNUAL TAX <br />LEVY <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING: <br />REZONING PROPERTY <br />AT SOUTHWEST <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell summarized changes that had been made by Council <br /> at the work session which included increased funding for VPI-SU, <br /> services to youth, services to elderly, Legal Aid and Madison House. <br /> Program reductions were made in tax relief for the elderly, overtime, <br /> and the audit fee. <br /> Mr. Conover moved the "RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE <br /> 'CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1984 <br /> AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1985 AND PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION <br /> OF FUNDS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR," Dr. Hall seconded the motion and it <br /> was carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that all tax rates would remain at the present <br /> levels. <br /> Dr. Hall moved' the ordinance entitled~"AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH <br /> THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY ON VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY FOR THE PAYMENT OF <br /> INTEREST AND RETIREMENT OF THE CITY DEBT, FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY <br /> GOVERNMENT AND CITY SCHOOLS, AND FOR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES," Mrs. <br /> Gleason seconded the motion, and it was carried over to the next meeting <br /> for consideration. · <br /> Mr. ROn Higgins, Planner from the Department of Community Develop- <br /> ment, reviewed the project and listed the following reasons for the <br />CORNER OF 5th ST. 1) It <br />S.W. & HARRIS RD. Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the rezoning: <br />FROM R-2 & R-3 <br />TO B-3 is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and its Land Use Plan. 2) Sufficient <br /> justification has not been made for rezoning additional land to B-3 <br /> Business in this area. 3) The R-3 zoning provides a better transitional <br /> area between the commercial zoning to the south and the R-2 zoning to <br /> the north. 4) This property which is next to the school and on grade <br /> with the school property should be kept residential in zoning since <br /> commercial zoning would be imcompatible to the adjacent property and <br /> for safety reasons. Mr. Higgins also listed the reasons for denial <br /> recommended by the Department of Community Development: 1) It is <br /> contrary to the present Comprehensive Plan and its Land Use Plan. <br /> 2) Sufficient vacant B~3 land exists in the area for the proposed use. <br /> 3) The R-3 zoning provides a better transitional area between the <br /> commercial zoning to the south and the R-2 zoning to the north. <br /> 4) There needs to be further study made of this area in the Land Use <br /> Plan of the Comprehensive Plan before making such a decision. <br /> Mr. claude Cotten requested that Council look at the rezoning <br /> of the property at the corner of 5th Street and Harris Road as a <br /> practical matter. Mr. Cotten stated that the property had been graded <br /> with the property now occupied by Food Lion and that the drainage works <br /> together with that property. <br /> Mr. John Via of Harris Road, directly across from the property in <br /> question, stated his support of the rezoning. <br /> Mr. Conover moved to deny the rezoning, stressing that he felt <br /> an effort should be made to prevent 5th Street from becoming an unpleasant <br /> commercial strip into the City. Mrs. Gleason seconded the motion to deny. <br /> Dr. Hall stated that he felt residents in that area have-been asking <br /> for development there and added that it did not se~m to be a good location <br /> <br />for residential units. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.