My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-04-04
Charlottesville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2005
>
2005-04-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2005 3:07:27 PM
Creation date
8/24/2005 2:47:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
4/4/2005
Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
2 <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on this application was held before the City <br />Council and Planning Commission on March 8, 2005, following notice to the public and <br />to adjacent property owners as required by law; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, based on the information presented by <br />Neighborhood Development Services staff as well as by the Applicant, the Planning <br />Commission recommended that the application be approved as submitted; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that the Applicant's requested <br />modifications of applicable yard regulations (i) will be in harmony with the purposes and <br />intent of Article I, Division 8 of the City's zoning ordinance and of the R-UHD zoning <br />district; (ii) are necessary or desirable in view of the nature, circumstances and location <br />of the proposed development; and (iii) do not propose a use that is not otherwise allowed <br />within the R-UHD district; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, this City Council finds and determines that granting the requested <br />Special Use Permit would be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and the criteria <br />generally applicable to special use permits under Chapter 34 of the City Code; now, <br />therefore, <br /> <br />BE IT RESOLVED by the Charlottesville City Council that: <br /> <br />(1) <br /> <br />A special use permit is hereby granted to allow the residential development of the <br />Subject Property at a density of up to eighty seven (87) dwelling units per acre; <br />and <br /> <br />(2) <br /> <br />For the development authorized by this Special Use Permit, the maximum <br />building height shall be sixty eight (68) feet; however, due to topography of the <br />site, this height allows for a building height of (a) 78 feet (measured from the curb <br />of the street to the mid-point of the sloping roof of the building) along the Subject <br />Property's 15th Street frontage, and (b) 58 feet (measured from the curb to the <br />mid-point of the sloping roof of the building) along the Subject Property's <br />Monroe Lane frontage; <br /> <br />(3) Pursuant to City Code {}34-162, with respect to the development that is the subject <br /> of this Special Use Permit, the following yard regulations shall apply: <br /> <br />a. Side yards shall be eight (8) feet, minimum; <br />b. Front yards (15th Street and Monroe Lane) shall be ten (10) feet, <br /> minimum. <br />c. The shall be no stepback requirement along the Subject Property's 15th <br /> Street frontage, after 5 stories / 60 feet of height. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING: CITY COUNCIL'S PROPOSED BY 2006 BUDGET <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell reviewed the budget highlights and pointed out the following <br />increases proposed by Council: Boys and Girls Club ($12,000); Charlottesville <br />Contemporary Center for the Arts ($10,392); Municipal Band ($4,500); Legal Aid Elder <br />Law Program ($17,481); and Public Defender's Office ($26,000). <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked questions about which of these agencies were subject to the <br />budget review process and about whether Council guidelines were followed in the <br />recommendations. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell provided the following information. The Boys and Girls Club and <br />Legal Aid Elder Law Programs were reviewed by the budget review team who <br />recommended funding, but the City Manager's office did not because of the policy of <br />funding no new programs. The CCCA and Municipal Band were not reviewed by the <br />review team, but were recommended to receive 3% increases. The Public Defender's <br />office was reviewed by staff and was not recommended because it was seen as a new <br />program. Mr. O'Connell said that budget guidelines are reviewed. He said there was a <br />sense that things were tighter than they were believed to be in the fall. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.