1985-08-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

102 On motion by Dr. Gunter, seconded by Mrs. Gleason, the resolution accepting streets in Seminole Square was unanimously approved by Council. BE IT RESOLVED by the COuncil of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, on recommendation of the City Engineer, that the following streets located in the Seminole Square subdivision, which have been built to City standards and specifications, are hereby accepted into the City street system for maintenance in their entirety: Seminole Court, Zan Road, India Road and Line Drive. This acceptance shall not apply to any portions of said streets heretofore vacated by action of this Council. RESOLUTION: APPOINTING VIEWERS TO CONSIDER CLOSING AN ALLBY BETWEEN BRANDON AVENUE AND MONROE LANE Mr. Buck stated that he would abstain due to a conflict of interest. On motion by Dr. Hall, seconded by Mr. Barnes, the resolution appointing viewers to consider closing an alley between Brandon Avenue and Monroe Lane was approved by CounCil, with Mr. Buck abstaining. WHEREAS, this Council has received a petition requesting vacation of a 15 foot alley running from Brandon Avenue to Monroe Lane; and WHEREAS, it appears to Council that the notice required by Section 15.1-364 of the Cade of Virginia (1950), as amended, has been duly advertised; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville that Ms. Mary Jane Haynes, Messrs. W. J. Copeland and H. P. Winn, Jr. report in writing to Council what inconvenience, if any, would result from such vacation. ORDINANCE: REZONING PROPERTY AT END OF ROCK CREEK ROAD FROM R-2 TO R-2 PUD (2nd reading) Mr. Satyendra Huja, Director of Community Development, stated that since the first reading of the ordinance, a letter from an adjoining property owner had been received opposing less than a 25-foot distance from one of the proposed buildings to the adjacent property line. Mr. Huja added that he had visited the site and did not feel that major tree removal would result with the 25-foot distance. Mr. Buck read the letter from Mr. Eddy Williamson in opposition to less than the 25-foot distance. Mr. Barnes made a motion to amend the ordinance to re'quire the distance of 25-feet from the building to the adjoining property line in light of the property owner's objection and the findings of Mr. Huja. Mr. Buck stated that the developers had noted concern that moving the building to the 2S-foot distance would require significant grading changes. Mr. Huja stated that he did not see that significant grading changes would be necessary. Council unanimously voted to amend the ordinance by requiring the 2S-foo~t distance between the building and the adjacent property line.