HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 10 81 PC MinutesFebruary 10, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 10, 1981, at 7.30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; and Mr. Corwith Davis. Absent from the meeting was Mr. Allan Kindrick.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio, attended a portion of the meeting. Other
officials present were Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, and
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
SP-81-1 Nettie Marie Jones - Located south of Ivy at the intersection of Routes
637 and 786. Tax Map 74 and 58, Parcels 95 and 96, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. Proposal to divide a 674 + acre tract into 16 parcels with an average
lot size of 5.8 acres, leaving a residue of 580 + acres.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and noted that this is the first special
use application to be considered under the new ordinance. Mr. Keeler added that
the Highway Department had discussed the location of the entrance and would
address that matter at site review.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this property is designated RA Rural Areas instead of
Village.
Mr. Keeler replied that in developing the zoning map adopted in December, 1980,
staff had attempted to delineate growth areas with appropriate zoning, but that
the County tax maps which were staff's reference source do not adequately reflect
vegetation and natural features of boundaries. He stated, therefore, that staff
was unable to apply Village Residential zoning to the extent recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked which density standards were being applied, Village Residential
or RA district.
Mr. Keeler replied that RA Rural Areas standards were applied.
Mr. Will Rieley, representing the applicant, then made a slide presentation,
which included aerial photos of the site and which illustrated in great detail
the topography of the property, soil and vegetation information, and the proposed
uses. Mr. Rieley stressed the concern felt over retaining the historical and
agricultural setting surrounding the eighteenth century house, and he stated that
the intention of the applicant was to do a total land use plan, incorporating
agricultural, forestal and residential uses.
Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting to public comment.
Mr. Andrian Gear requested clarification on the number of potential lots.
%WW'
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to answer this question.
Mr. Keeler stated the provisions of the Rural Areas district allowed division of
this tract into thirty-five or thirty-six parcels, five of which would be
less than 21 acres in area, and the remainder to be 21 acres or greater in 140
area. Mr. Keeler further stated that a special use permit was required in
this case due to the number of lots that are less than 21 acres in area.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Gear whether this answered his question, and he indicated
that it did. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further comments from the public.
Mrs Diehl established that there were not and closed the public hearing,
indicating that the matter was now before the Commission.
Mr. Skove said that Mr. Reiley's presentation was certainly very impressive.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the smallest lot size was.
Mr. Keeler replied 2.7 acres.
Mr. Payne volunteered to clarify the situation for the Commission, stating that
this property should have been zoned something other than Rural Areas. Mr. Payne
added that the Comprehensive Plan calls for it to be within a growth area. He
stated that it. is an aberration and that it is unfortunate that this is the
first special use application to be reviewed under the new ordinance, since
this is an unusual circumstance and unlikely to set a precedent.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether part of the property is in Village Residential.
Mr. Keeler explained that when the planning staff was directed to develop
the zoning map to reflect as closely as possible the Comprehensive Plan, it
was not possible to show all of the Village Residential on the south side of
Ivy because the tax maps do not have the same physical features that were
used to establish the boundary of Ivy.
Mr. Payne added that there was nothing with which to draw a boundary.
Mr. Skove suggested that it was not possible to get the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning map to exactly coincide.
Mr. Keeler concurred.
Mrs. Diehl said, however, that part of this property does fall within the area
of Village Residential, if she understood correctly.
Mr. Payne replied that part of it fell within the area of the village in the
Comprehensive Plan, but that it was all zoned RA.
Mr. Davis said that it is an aberration in that the lot sizes are larger than
the Comprehensive Plan requires, 5.8 acres average.
Mr. Payne stated that this was one criteria -that could be considered in favor
of the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he had to agree with Mr. Skove, that this had been
a terrific presentation, adding that Mr. Reiley had addressed the matter in
detail.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the application, subject to the two
conditions recommended by staff. He added that he would be willing to discuss
the third condition, if it was agreeable to the applicant.
Mr. Reiley said that this condition really had little effect on the case and
that he did not have any problem with it.
Mr. Davis said that since it was already on the plat, the third condition was
not necessary.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the motion had been moved and seconded; she added that
she was not certain whether the motion included the third condition.
Mr. Payne suggested that it was advisable to be explicit.
Mr. Gloeckner amended his motion, since the third condition was acceptable to
the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would like to commend this presentation as being very
helpful and informative to both the Commission and the public. He added that
he hoped that future special use applicants would follow this example, that it
speaks well as to the intent of the Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler mentioned that the Highway Department is speaking to both dedication,
right-of-way and slope easements in the third condition.
The motion with the three conditions given below was approved unanimously:
1) Further division of the residue acreage shall require amendment of this
special use permit;
2) Subdivision development shall be limited to 16 parcels exclusive of the
residue. Such development shall occur within the Ivy village area as delineated
in the Comprehensive Plan and shall be in general accord with the preliminary
plat entitled "Subdivision Plan - Spring Hill," dated November, 1980, marked
received "Feb. 4, 1981, RSK.";
3) Compliance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
recommendations regarding dedications and slope easements on Route 679, as
described in the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter,
dated February 3, 1981, to Ronald S. Keeler.
ZMA-81-1 Charles Hurt - Located north of Route 250 East between Ashcroft planned
development and Franklin subdivision. Tax Map 78 and 62, Parcel 57 (part of),
Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 339+ acres from RA Rural Areas
and PRD to R-15.
Before giving the staff report, Mr. Keeler passed out a summary of Dr. Hurt's
long-range plans for the Pantops area to the Commission and elaborated on some
of its contents. He stated that the plan calls for 500 acres of residential use,
about 6,600 dwelling units, 23 acres of recreational uses, including various
clubs and facilities of that type, 399 acres of common greens, open space and
7l�
riding trails, 88 acres in public uses, such as libraries and schools, 40
acres of light industrial uses, 116 acres in commercial and professional
services, for a total of nearly 1,200 acres„
Mr. Keeler stated that the essence of these two rezoning applications was a
request to restore or intensify the zoning that existed before the adoption of
the new zoning map, actually to intensify in terms of total acreage or uses.
Mr. Keeler then presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked Dr. Hurt whether he would care to comment.
Dr. Hurt replied that he would like to give the Commission a little additional
background. He stated that he had acquired this property in the sixties,
before there was any zoning in Albemarle County, and that he had had a professional
land plan done. Dr. Hurt presented this plan to the Planning Commission, he said,
with the statement that it was a twenty-year plan and that at the time he did not
intend to do anything. Dr. Hurt stated that the Planning Commission zoned his
property according to this plan.
Dr. Hurt said that he had the zoning that he wanted when suddenly in December his
property was rezoned. He added that he had held up development on the east side
waiting for utilities. Dr. Hurt said that :in the early seventies the City agreed
to give him a sewer line, but that then he :ran into the annexation proceedings and
wanted to have that resolved before going ahead with his plan. Dr. Hurt said that
he extended the water line with. a big trunk line and put the sewer line across
Route 250 and sized all of his mains. He stated that all of this represented
a considerable investment. He further remarked that he found it grossly
unfair to take away zoning on property involving a project that had taken a
lot of work and been planned with care. Dr. Hurt said that thousands of dollars
had been spent already on extending utilities and that financing on the property
was based on certain zoning and that it was just inconceivable to him that the
Planning Commission could suddenly remove his zoning. Dr. Hurt said that he
found this action unjustifiable and that if he could not have his property
returned to the earlier zoning, he would take the matter to court.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, added that he would just like the
Commission to look closely at what the zoning was previously and what it became
in December. He stated that with the new zoning it was not clear just how they
could proceed with their plan. Mr. Hill pointed out where the water line and
sewer line come, to State Farm Boulevard, on the exhibited plan, and stated that
the City and County have a joint venture to put in a water tank. Mr. Hill said
that the development of this property has been planned, that provisions for
these utilities and fire protection were known to both the City and County and
were designed to carry the development of the property.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Hill to point out the water line again.
Mr. Hill said that the water line ran down State Farm Boulevard, under 250 to
the Odyssey.
Dr. Hurt reiterated that all he wanted was the zoning that he had had for
ten years and for which he had made a long-term plan.
Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting to public comment.
V
Mr. Fred Nolting, a neighbor of Dr. Hurt, asked to be enlightened about R-15
zoning. He asked whether fifteen to twenty units per acre are permitted.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this was correct.
Mr. Nolting asked what type of units these would be. He added that with 339
acres and fifteen units per acre, this would be a community of some 15,000
people.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to respond to the density question.
Mr. Keeler stated that there would be a range of from 5,000 to 7,000 units.
Mr. Nolting asked how many people were calculated to reside in each unit.
Mr. Keeler replied 2.71.
Dr. Hurt brought up the point that this is a long-term plan that was made in
1960 with the intent of carrying it out over a period of time. He added that
he visualized Pantops ultimately as a city surrounded by land, park land.
Dr. Hurt stated that rather than have Pantops divided into a few lots and then
redivided, that he hoped to achieve his ultimate plan in the first step. He
said that he had never envisioned a greater density on his property than
Charlottesville per acre, that he envisioned apartment houses and townhouses
on the nice land, surrounded by 300 acres of open space. Dr. Hurt said that
any twenty-year plan must allow for some flexibility, but that these were his
intentions, to develop gradually.
Mr. John Haskell stated that these matters might have been addressed earlier,
but that he could not help but be concerned over a project of such magnitude,
whether provisions had been made for a buffer, whether approving something now
meant less control over later development. He added that it seemed to be a
tremendous decision for the Planning Commission to make, involving such high
density and acreage.
Dr. Hurt interrupted to say that all he was requesting was a return of the
zoning he had had for ten years.
Mrs. Diehl said that Mr. Haskell's question addressed the issue of making a
decision of certain scope on a conceptual basis.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. There was not, and
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Skove asked whether the 150 acres of vacant land were in the R-15.
Mr. Keeler pointed out where the 150 acres of vacant land were, saying that
at least part of those acreas were in the next application for commercial
zoning. He stated that it appeared that a third or a quarter were in R-15.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to explain whether she had understood correctly
that in some respects this was a request for more intense zoning than had
previously existed.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this was true; he pointed out that the old R-3 zoning
had not reached back as far as the requested R-15 illustrated on the exhibited
plan.
7Z
Mr. Davis remarked that the existing zoning is RA and that the Comprehensive
Plan does not call for high density zoning in that area. He stated that he
felt that perhaps it was in order to review the Comprehensive Plan for
possible amendment, prior to acting on a rezoning application of such
magnitude. Mr. Davis added that this was a special use under a RPN.
Mr. Skove said that he tended to agree withL Mr. Davis and that on a rezoning
application of this magnitude, the entire area should be considered in a more
comprehensive manner. Secondly, Mr. Skove said that it had taken almost two
years to arrive at the zoning now in existence and that he did not know of
anything that had happened within the last month or two to justify changing the
current zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would not have a. problem returning to the original
zoning, except for the bridge. He stated that if plans for improving the
bridge were known, he would feel comfortable going back to a higher density
designation. Mr. Gloeckner further stated that the bridge is always a bottle-
neck and that he would want to see improvements or some other access coincide
with such a return to the earlier zoning.
Dr. Hurt stated that he did not object to waiting until the bridge is built.
He reiterated that his was a long-term plan., but that he wanted his original
zoning.
Mrs. Diehl said that she agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, that the area was eventually,
at some future point, probably going to be developed, but that perhaps it was a
little premature to apply certain zoning until other facilities that are
necessary are available.
Dr. Hurt stated that his plan was to bring industry to this side of the
Rivanna, that it would not be necessary for people to cross the river. He
continued, saying that Interstate 64 was an excellent highway and that he
planned on a well -mixed development. Dr. Hurt said that there were 1,000
people at State Farm that needed housing and that if services were provided
on this side of the Rivanna there would be no need to worry about the bridge.
Mr. Bowerman said that he agreed with what Mr. Davis and Mr. Skove had said.
He stated that he favored changing the Comprehensive Plan designation after
looking at the whole area, from the 250 Bypass to Interstate 64, and after
examining the impact of a planned development on the entire area. Mr. Bowerman
added that this review should be carried out in a comprehensive fashion,
rather than doing a blanket rezoning, especially in light of the fact that the
Supervisors have just rezoned the area.
Mr. Hill remarked that this had actually been a down -zoning, that this property
had been financed, sold and plans made based on its original zoning.
Mr. Davis observed that the Planning Commission can only act on what is put
before it and live up to its responsibilities.
Mr. Skove moved for denial of ZMA-81-1.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
73
ZMA-81-2 Charles Hurt - Located north of Route 250 East abutting Glenorchy on
the east and Route 20 North on the west. Tax Map 78 and 62, Parcels 55A, 55D,
12 (part of), 57 (part of), Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone
161+ acres from R-1, R-6, R-15 to HC Highway Commercial.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant, Dr. Hurt, if he wished to make a presentation.
Dr. Hurt replied that this application was part of the earlier one, that this
property was designed to be a mix of commercial and residential uses. He stated
that a study had been made of the City of Charlottesville as to what percentage
was used for business and residential. Dr. Hurt said that using these figures
as guidelines, it had been calculated that this area would have about a quarter
of the growth of Charlottesville in the next twenty to thirty years. He
continued that the density figures were determined by the City percentages and
were incorporated into a total plan of combined commercial and residential uses
as opposed to a fragmented plan. He again stated that he only sought to restore
his original zoning.
Dr. Hurt mentioned that it was difficult to sell a company such as State Farm
on the idea of locating in an area where services, housing, etc. are going to
be provided, only to have the zoning changed. He added that it embarrassed him
to have to try to explain the whims of local government and that it was possible
that another Planning Commission in a few years might once again change the
zoning, making it very difficult to make long-range plans.
Mr. Hill stated that the existing power line and road, which he pointed out on
the master plan, were always intended for commercial use.
Mrs. Diehl opened the meeting to public comment. Since there was no public
comment, the matter stood before the Commission.
Mr. Skove said that he saw very little difference between this application and
the earlier one.
Mr. Davis added that since the Comprehensive Plan did not call for the requested
zoning, the proper step would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan or have the
applicant come back before the Commission with a full-scale planned development.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt differently about this application, since it
involved commercial land. He said that he would not be adverse to restoring
commercial zoning along 250, but the magnitude of the present request, 161 acres,
would be too much of an impact.
Mr. Hill said that this was part of the problem with the new zoning, that in
order to return to what they had before, they had to comply with the new
requirement of a certain depth in relation to frontage, thereby increasing the
amount of commercial land from the original.
Mr. Keeler explained that under the new ordinance Highway Commercial restricts
the frontage to not exceed the depth.
Mr. Davis said that the present zoning does reflect the need for high -density
housing in this area of town. He added that it is not the case that there is no
land zoned out there for housing.
Mr. Gloeckner said he has a problem knowing that Dr. Hurt has been working
with this plan over the years. He said that the impact of the residential
area disturbed him because of the traffic generated, but that business would
generate less intense congestion in terms of traffic. Mr. Gloeckner said
that he wished to find some means for Dr. Hurt to work out his difficulties,
and continue his long-term plan.
Mr. Hill said that when State Farm came in and First Virginia, the Commission
asked them to try to limit the accesses to 250 and they did. He added that
that was one of the reasons they built State Farm Boulevard. Mr. Hill said
that the type of roads that the Highway Department was requiring made it
necessary to have some commercial businesses, to help defer the high cost of
these roads, that single family dwellings could not support such roads.
Mr. Davis suggested that if the Commission could see an overall plan, perhaps
they could deal with it better.
Mr. Skove said that he had not seen any evidence that 160 acres of commercial
zoning was needed.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed, but stated that he would like to see the zoning drop back
to parallel 2.50 to allow for businesses.
Dr. Hurt said that having a large tract zoned commercial was quite a definite
advantage in attracting one large business. He added that many businesses
want open space around their facility, for expansion or park land, and that
there are not many places where this is possible. Dr. Hurt said that he
felt that it hurt the community to put a business in and make them pave all
the area around the installation. He mentioned that State Farm, as an
example, had .sixty acres. He said that it was a mistake to think in terms
of unused commercial land, that often a business would like to keep some of
the land vacant.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was going to have to ask that the applicant and his
representative refrain from further comments while the matter was before the
Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the previous acreage of commercial zoning had been.
Mr. Keeler said that he did not have that information, but that he thought
that the Ordinance prevented the entire area from being zoned Highway Commercial.
He added that some other commercial designation might be possible, at least
for a portion of the acreage.
Mr. Gloeckner wondered whether it would be worth deferring the application to
see whether the Planning staff and Dr. Hurt's staff could work together to
return the commercial land to its previous status. Mr. Gloeckner thought that
the previous zoning made more sense in terms of continuity.
Mr. Davis suggested that it was more expeditious for Dr. Hurt to take his
points to the Board because they have the ultimate say.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the only problem with that was that a denial by
the Commission became the recommendation to the Board, as opposed to a
solution at the Board level.
711
t)
Mr. Skove remarked that he was still disturbed by 161 acres of commercial zoning,
that Fashion Square was sixty acres, and that he did not see the need for these
161 acres.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not see the need either for 161 acres, but that
in looking at the previous zoning it appeared that approximately half of this
amount was commercial. And he added that this would make it about eighty acres,
enough to attract a sizable business.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the Chairman to recognize him as the ex-Officio member of
the Commission. He told the Commission that the Board of Supervisors as a body
and he, personally, had devoted a great deal of time to this issue. He said
that if one looked at just one side of the highway, where there is extensive
commercial and some industrial use, one did not have the proper perspective.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he believed that the Board was already concerned about
the amount of commercial use already in existence on 250. He elaborated on the
Board's position, explaining that the depth of commercial use on the south side
of 250 was due in part to the development expected in the area around State Farm,
but as far as the north side developing commercially, there was definitely a
feeling that there was already more than enough commercial development on 250.
Mr. Lindstrom continued, saying that leaving as much commercial zoning as was
left on the south side of 250 was in itself a compromise. He said that the Board
feared that 250 could turn into a highway, such as others in the County,with too
much highway commercial; Mr. Lindstrom added that it was the intent of the Board
to see the south side be a sort of commercial park type setting.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that in looking at Dr. Hurt's plan it appeared that he had
essentially followed everything that he had studied for years and that it made
more sense to him than dropping back to a lesser density.
Mrs. Diehl said that she had problems with even eighty acres, with the impact
that this would have on the total area and in terms of the Comprehensive Plan.
She added that she thought that it might still be the best procedure to amend
the Comprehensive Plan, rather than rezone a large parcel.
Mr. Davis said that unless Dr. Hurt has a plan that he could recommend, he did
not see any solution except to take the appropriate steps to amend the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Davis said that he would be happy to defer the matter, if the
applicant would so desire, and that perhaps Dr. Hurt could work something out.
Dr. Hurt said that he would be happy to work further with the County.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would not be able to vote for deferral, until such
time as the Commission reviewed the entire Comprehensive Plan in light of the
kind of development desired in the whole area. He added that unless there were
significant reasons for a change, he would probably leave the zoning as it now
exists.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that when a business looks at a piece of property, it
wants it already zoned for the commercial use intended, rather than having to
go through a process to get the desired zoning. Mr. Gloeckner further stated
that in looking at this property a business could interpret the Board's action
to say that business was not desired in this area, and he was not certain that
such was the intent of the Board.
7�
Mr. Skove said that for two years the entire area was examined and various
land uses studied according to the Comprehensive Plan and that this zoning
came out of that extensive work. He added that 161 acres was a lot of land.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he agreed, but that the zoning prior to the Board's
recent action was in his opinion proper. Mr. Gloeckner said that he was not
certain what the Commission's recommendations had been and asked Mr. Keeler
whether he remembered how different the Board's action had been from what the
Commission recommended.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed the Commission had recommended highway
commercial and office commercial; he ascertained that the Board's action
reflected more intensive residential use, adding that the Commission had
recommended R-6 behind the commercial zone..
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that he remembered :Long discussions and an effort to
allow for a mixture of commercial uses in the area and that to drop it back
to a higher residential density did not make sense along that particular area
of 250.
Mr. Skove moved for denial of ZMA-81-2.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further discussion. There was none,
and the motion passed 3-2, with Mr. Davis and Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
Mr. Bowerman said that if there was a desire to reexamine this area, the
Commission ought to consider adopting a resolution of intent to amend the
Zoning Ordinance. He continued that if as a body the Commission found
sufficient reason to change the zoning in this area it should draw up those
recommendations to pass on to the Board.
Mr. Gloeckner said that in effect this process had already been carried out
and that most of the Commission's recommendations had not been accepted.
Mr. Bowerman said that he did not see how the Commission could change the
zoning in this area unless they went through that process again.
Mr. Davis stated that he did not think that. the Commission could properly
initiate such action. Mr. Davis said that he thought that someone else should
come to the Commission and request reconsideration of the Comprehensive Plan,
but that it was not in the domain of the Commission to go through this exercise
again on its own.
Mr. Bowerman requested Mr. Payne, the Deputy County Attorney, to address the
question of whether the Commission could properly reconsider its own initiative.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission had the authority to do so.
Mr. Davis continued, saying that it would be repeating the same exercise, unless
the Commission was presented with a specific proposal, specific reasons why.
Mr. Bowerman said that if there w-re strong arguments they should be brought
forth for a rezoning in that meeting. 148)
77
Mrs. Diehl remarked that this was her problem, that the tools had been present
but that there were no specific indications that a change was in order, in fact
there were indications to the contrary with the vacant land in the area.
ZMA-81-3 North 29 Business Land and Trust - Located on east side of Route 29
North across from Airport Acres and Northside Industrial Park. Tax Map 32,
Parcel 20, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 78.040 acres from
RA Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Mr. Keeler during the staff report gave some background information on the change
in the new Zoning Ordinance concerning Highway Commercial, the new requirement
that frontage shall not exceed depth. Mr. Keeler explained that this change was
designed to address the problems that existed with development along Route 29,
to encourage interior development of the commercial zone and to provide for a
mix of commercial zoning and to preserve some of the functional character of
Route 29 North, in particular.
Mr. Keeler also explained that a portion of the land in this application was under
contract to 84 Lumber. He added that at the time of developing the new zoning
map these property transactions were unknown. Mr. Keeler also stated that
Mr. David Darchuk of 84 Lumber had filed for a rezoning of his property.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant, Dr. Hurt, whether he would like to comment.
Dr. Hurt stated that at the time he negotiated to sell some of his land to 84
Lumber, he did not know that part of his commercially zoned property would be
down -zoned. Dr. Hurt stated that the property division had been based on where
the crossover existed, that he thought that the logical location for a road
would be there. He added that he felt that all of the road systems that he had
built in the County were an asset to the area, that he had built more local roads
than the Highway Department. Dr. Hurt said that he encouraged 84 Lumber to come
in at this point because it would be at a crossroads.
Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment.
Mary Jo Lovelace said that their property is near the mobile park. She said
that she had known that the land off Route 29 was zoned commercial, but that she
was now concerned over the depth of the commercial zone. She said that certain
types of businesses would present problems, such as service stations, since there
was no buffer and the land abutts a residential area. Ms. Lovelace stated that
she would hope to see one large, well -planned business, such as State Farm,
instead of several small businesses, especially with the Hollymead commercial
zone so nearby.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
Mr. Darchuk said that as had been mentioned, he had been in a couple of weeks
earlier with a site plan. He said that he thought most of the reasons for this
rezoning request had been spelled out, that 84 Lumber just wanted to square off
this piece of property in order to meet other ordinance requirements, and to
fulfill the depth requirement.
to
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. There was not,
and she stated that the matter was now before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler for additional remarks.
Mr. Keeler stated that the boundaries of Hollymead were discussed at both the
Commission and Board levels when amendments were made to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission at one point recommended Light Industrial, and Dr. Hurt asked
that it remain Commercial, Mr. Keeler recalled. Mr. Keeler said that Hollymead
as adopted only took in one corner as commercial, excluding all other lands.
Mr. Gloeckner asked to be shown where the Planning Commission had placed the
boundaries of Hollymead as opposed to where they ended up on the new zoning map.
He said that he thought the Commission set the limits beyond, to include some of
the subdivisions and to square off the Hollymead community.
Mr. Keeler said that he remembered that on one of the many zoning maps it was
designated as Light Industrial; he added that he never recalled its having been
designated commercial on any of the maps. And he said that he could not recall
specifically the Commission's limits to Hollymead, although he tended to agree
with Mr. Gloeckner.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that she was not certain how germane this was to the
Commission's deliberations.
Mr. Gloeckner answered that he believed that the same battles would be fought
again if the Commission made recommendations and the Board dropped back
again on the zoning.
Mr. Davis added that the Board's intentions were very clear in the new Zoning
Ordinance, that the Board wished to limit the continuing commercial development
out 29 North. He stated that he did feel that the small portion of land of 84
Lumber should if possible be rezoned to make it a more usable piece of land.
Mr. Gloeckner concurred, saying that it was land zoned business that was suddenly
turned into Agricultural, Rural Areas.
Mr. Davis reiterated that it would also make it a usable tract.
Mrs. Diehl added that as Dr. Hurt had stated, it would square it off on both
sides for future development.
Mr. Skove said that he had no problem with rezoning that small strip for 84
Lumber, but that until there was a more demonstrated need for additional commercial
land, he was opposed to anything more extensive.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission could rezone that small portion C-1 or
CO when that was not the rezoning requested.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission could do so. He added, however, that
rezoning only that particular segment for the convenience of 84 Lumber would
seem dangerously akin to spot zoning.
Mr. Keeler said that a number of issues were involved. He said there was
some question of interpretation concerning on which road the frontage of this
property existed. He said that in his opinion the Ordinance intended the
7y
frontage of Highway Commercial to be on a major road, thereby indicating that
Route 29 constituted where the frontage was, as opposed to Proffit, and that
the difference between frontage and depth was very close, like fifty to sixty
feet. Mr. Keeler said that in talking with Mr. Payne he thought that he had
determined that there was a provision in the Ordinance for doing this at the
time of enactment of the Ordinance and that he did not know at what time a
contract was taken out on this land by 84 Lumber.
Dr. Hurt responded that the contract was taken out before the new Zoning
Ordinance and that the sliver of land involved was between the creek and the
road and was not much usable land.
Mr. Payne amplified the reasoning behind possibly justifying this rezoning on
the basis of treating it as an exemption, an oversight, in conjunction with
the intent of the Ordinance which allows such for parcels put on at the time
a new zoning map is adopted. Mr. Payne continued that in squaring off this
property it would be consistent with the intent of the Ordinance and that the
possible difference between frontage and depth would be minimal.
Mr. Davis asked what specific language should be used.
Mr. Payne said that he thought the plat had a clear delineation and that just
that portion could be rezoned from RA to HC, if that was what the Commission
wanted to do.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion.
: Mr. Skove moved for approval of the rezoning of that portion of the land which
is the subject of this application between the existing boundary of the HC
district and the proposed entrance road as the southernly margin of the
proposed entrance road with the precise boundaries to be delineated on a plat
to be submitted prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting, scheduled for
March 4, 1981, as worded by Mr. Payne.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Skove moved for denial of ZMA-81-3, except for that portion previously
approved.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed 4-1 with Mr. Gloeckner
dissenting.
Mrs. Diehl proceeded to the new business on the agenda.
Request for Resolution of Intent to amend Comprehensive Plan - Realignment/
Improvement of Route 631 south of Charlottesville.
Mr. Keeler said that the Highway Department had presented the staff with a
Route 631 corridor study for rerouting and improving that portion south of
the City from I-64 to about 1000 feet south of Route 706. Mr. Keeler said that
it was important to include this in the Comprehensive Plan, where it is referred
to in part. He said that it is also a part of the CAT study that can proceed
separately.
N
Mr. Skove asked when the CAT study would be finally completed, saying that
he did not like doing piecemeal approvals.
Mr. Keeler said he thought that the study had been near completion when
the issue of mass transit came up and it was decided that this should be
addressed, thereby delaying the study another eighteen months. Mr. Keeler
said that there were still about six months more to go before the study would
be ready to go to public hearing.
Mr. Davis made a motion to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to include the proposed realignment and improvement of Route 631 south of
Charlottesville.
Mr. Gloeckner_ seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no discussion.
Mrs. Diehl requested Mr. Skove to begin work on an annual report to present to
the Board of Supervisors. She added that she and Mr. Skove had worked on an
annual report for the Planning Commission last year, so that Mr. Skove had some
background to draw from.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
t W. Tucker, Jr., SeVret
i�l