Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-04 adjJune 4, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned~ fromMay 29,1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 4, 1980, beginning at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 29, 1980. Present: Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at 2:10 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 2:12 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush (Arrived at 2:05 P.M.). Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:12 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of application filed with the State Corporation Commission from Rappahannock Electric Cooperative requesting approval of a revision in the wholesale power cost adjustment clause and implementation of a temporary rider surcharge. Also received was notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission from C&P Telephone for authority to increase and restructure its schedules of rates and charges for intrastate telecommunications services. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Basically Mr. T~cker presented the following written requests from property owners. Although there was a small amount of discussion, no decisions were made relative to these requests this date. t) Letter from F. Bosley Crowther, III, dated May 14, 1980. The letter was in reference to the rural areas district of the ordinance and Mr. Crowther's recommendations for improvement to that district. 2) Letter from Margaret B. Pullen (R. E. sandy property, Tax Map 121, Parcels 31 and 3lA) dated March 20, 1980, stating opposition to the proposed rural areas district. 3) Letter from Jane R. Ewald dated March 5, 1980 (Tandem Property, Tax Map 74, Parcels 14B and 15) opposing the RA designation for this property. Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Ewald's attorney will not be present until later in the meeting and asked that this request be discussed later. 4) Letter from D. A. Holden dated May 14, 1980, representing the Montvue Citizens Association. Mr. Holden states that the Planning Commission map shows R-1 zoning in the western part of Neighborhood 7. This zoning should be corrected to fit the Board's action of April 9 in designating this part of Neighborhood 7 as RAo 5) Letter from John Bosely dated May 19, 1980 (Tax Map 94A, Parcel A-I) requesting that this property be shown for a business designation on the proposed map instead of RA. Mr. Fisher asked how B-1 properties adjacent to Mr. Bose!y's property have been shown on the proposed map. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan does not show any commercial zoning at this interchange of 1-64. The Planning Commission~~ at one time, had recommended that the B-t zoning on the Bosely property be carried forward ~to the new map since the parcel is surrounded by commercial zoning. However, after this Board denied a rezoning request on this property a year ago, the Planning Commission rescinded their previous action and left the property as RA. 6) Letter from Harold M. Hochman dated April 21, 1980 (Tax Map 75, Parcel 53) protesting the RA designation for this property. Mr. Hockman states that he has held this property for 14 years as commercial property, purchasing same after the decision to build 1-64 was made. He said the property has been assessed and taxed as commercial property during this time. Mr. Tucker said this property is located at the southwest quadrant of 1-64 and Route 29 South, and is presently zoned. B-1. The Comprehensive Plan only shows commercial acreage in this area at about one-half of the present amount. Although the Comprehensive Plan shows this quadrant as being within the urban area boundary, when the commercial area is cut back, this property falls outside of that commercial area. To be consistent in showing zoning along the borders of the urban area, this property should be shown for low density residential. Mr. Fisher asked the terrain in this area. Mr. Tucker said it is very steep and that is the reason why the Planning Commission and Planning Staff felt the entire area should be reduced in commercial nature. The property is not too steep for residential use. 7) Undated letter from Sally Grymes Gieck (Tax Map 78, Parcels 33A and 33B) asking that the present business designation be retained on this property. Mrs. Gieck states that they have spent a great deal of time and money to develop this property as a suitable site for business. Mr. Tucker said this property is located at the interchange of 1-64 and 250 East. In the Comprehensive Plan, 1-64 is used as the boundary of the growth area and no high intensity zoning is shown south of 1-64. On the other side of Route 250, the Planning Commission did recommend commercial usage all the way to the Highway Department property since there are already existing businesses in that area. Mr. Tucker noted that a letter was received earlier from Mr. Meredith Bickers (Tax Map 78, Parcel 33) owner of adjoining property also opposing downzoning of his property to RA. He said the Gieck property has difficult topography and would require extensive grading in order to utilize the entire property. Miss Nash asked Mr. Gieck, who was present, how much of his property had been graded. Mr. Gieck said when Route 250 East was relocated, about $18,000 worth of fill was added to level the property for commercial usage. Mr. Lindstrom asked the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Mr. Tucker said this area is not shown as part of the urban area. Mr. Fisher asked about property on the other side of Route 250 East which was just mentioned. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan does not recognize that area as commerciaI either, but the Planning Commission recognized the area because of existing commercial activity and subdivision plats and site plans which have been submitted. June 4, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 29, 1980) Mr. Fisher said in addition to the Gieck and Bickers properties, there is also the question of the land near Lowe's. Mr. Tucker said a commercial subdivision has recently been approved and is in the process of being developed on a road which loops around Lowe's. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this whole question about commercial zoning had been decided when the Board was working on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for Neighborhood No. 3, and he requested copies of the minutes for those meetings. 8) Letter from Frederick L. Russell, Attorney for S. W. Heischman (Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership property, Tax Map 33, Parcels 1, lB, iD, 1E, iF, iH, ii, 13, 14, 15 and 16) dated December 18, 1979, protesting proposed zoning and urging that the acreage remain zoned for its logical uses. Mr. Russell'states that this acreage is presently zoned for industrial, commercial and other uses. A substantial purchase price was paid relying on the zoning and obligations and expenses have been made on development plans, sewer availability, roads, etc. Mr. Tucker said the part of this property lying along the east side of Route 29 North is presently shown as strip commercial. The Planning Commission recognized the RPN approved for a housing project for elderly persons (University Gardens) and one small portion of the commercial zoning between the stream that flows to the North Rivanna River and Route 29 North. The remaining strip commercial on Route 29 was not recognized because of severe topography on the property and the minimum distance between the stream mentioned and Route 29. Mr. Roudabush asked if there is presently a part of this property zoned for industrial use. Mr. Tucker said yes, but the industrial portion was not recognized by the Planning Commission because no industrial zoning is shown in the Comprehensive Plan in this area. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this letter raises a legal issue on downzoning and asked Mr. St. John to comment. Mr. St. John said his office has not studied this particular situation, nor looked at all of the factors noted in Mr. Russell's letter. However, if the Board thinks there is any reasonable use to which this land can be put, the fact that this comprehensive rezoning of the property is also a lessening of the monetary value of the land, would not keep the Board from downzoning the property. Mr. Lindstom asked the distinction between rezoning one parcel of property and rezoning through adopting a new zoning map for the entire county. Mr. St. John said in order to downzone on a piecemeal basis, it takes clear and convincing evidence that there was either a mistake in the original zoning placed on the property or there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Mr. Lindstrom asked, if a certain type of zoning is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan but there would be a significant financial impact caused by not recognizing that zoning category, would the financial impact.be sufficient to sustain retaining the existing zoning; could the Board be said to have acted arbitrarily by refusing to downzone the property to what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said if he understood the question correctly, there would be a case where the Board had departed from the Comprehensive Plan by failing to do what it calls for in one instance, thus weakening the Plan itself, but the Plan could always be changed to conform to the existing zoning. Mr. Fisher said adoption of the new zoning map is not just a question of downzoning, but also of upzoning. The maps shows a good deal of land for a higher intensity ~f~use and he asked if this shift of intensities from the rural areas into the urban areas is not what the Comprehensive Plan recommends. Mr. St. John said the Board went through a long process while adopting the Comprehensive Plan, and there are valid reasons for the way the Plan is drafted. Those same reasons would support zoning land to conform to the Plan. 9) Letter from Kendrick Dure dated January 24, 1979 (property of Katherine M. Dure, Tax Map 59, Parcels 38 and 39) objecting to the proposed downzoning from R-1 to RA. Mr. Tucker said this property is adjacent to Farmington, but the area falls outside of the urban area boundary. 10) Letter from David J. Wood, Jr. dated June 3, 1980, representing William H. White, III and Virginia R. White (Tax Map 55, Parcels 83, 84, 102 and 103; Tax Map 55A, Parcels 39 and 40) objecting to RA designation for this property. Mr. Tucker said this property is located a'djacent to the Crozet Community boundary and Mr. Wood feels the boundary rshould be extended to include the White property. The boundary of the Crozet Community basically follows the line shown in the Comprehensive Plan. In determining boundaries such as the Crozet Community'boundary, the staff had to use either a physical or a man-made boundary. In this case, property lines were followed. 11) Letter from Bruce D. Rasmussen dated February 28, 1980, representing Mr. & Mrs. Harry H. Plummer (Tax Map 55, Parcel 19B) stating that one-half of the Plummer's four-acre parcel is being rezoned to a less intensive use. The entire parcel is presently zoned for commercial use. Mr.. Tucker said this property (Tucked-Away) is in the northwest quadrant of 1-64 and Route 250 West. When the Planning Commission recognized commercial use for this quadrant, they chose to use a stream as the boundary. The stream basically splits the Plummer's property in half. The topography on the property is very steep. The only flat, usable area is where the house is located and that part of the property has not been shown for commercial use. Mr. Tucker said'a site plan has been presented to and approved by the Planning Commissio to use the existing house as an inn. 12) Letter from Lucius H. Bracey, Jr. dated March 6, 1980, representing Mrs. Leslie H. Walton (Tax Map 56, Parcels 88, 88A, 90 and 90A) noting that the property is just east of Crozet between U.S. Route 240 and the railroad. Existing zoning on the property is M-1 and proposed zoning is RA. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan shows industrial use in the general area, but in determining where to draw the line for the industrial area, the staff had used the industrial use fUrtherest to the east on Route 240 as the stopping point for that type of zoning. Mr. Lindstrom asked how this property would rank as industrial property using the priority criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said it would rank well because it is on the railroad siding. The only drawback is that the property is not presently served by public utilities. 13) Letter from Joan Graves, President, Berkeley Community Association, dated March 11, 1980, discussing property located on Dominion Drive adjacent to Shopper's World, owned by David J. Wood. Originally this parcel was shown as part of the shopping center, but Mr. Wood requested the Planning Commission to reconsider and make that zoning HC. Mrs. Graves is asking that this property be reconsidered by this Board and changed back to PD-SC. She notes that there is no safe way to provide access to the property from Dominion Drive. Mrs. Graves also states support for the C-1 designation on land south of Berkeley on the west side of Route 29 and the R-6 proposal for land west and north of the 2600 and 2700 blocks of Commonwealth Drive. Mrs. Graves states that the Assocation would prefer CO for the undeveloped portion of Berkmar Drive which abuts Berkeley to the north since they feel that HC violates the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. As a compromise, she says that a 300 foot strip of HC~n Rio Road with the rest of the property as C-1 might be acceptable as long as no road access is allowed into Berkeley except the connector shown in the Comprehensive Plan. 14) Letter from Frederick L. Russell representing Northwest Limited Partnership and University Heights, Inc. dated December 18, 1979, (Tax Map 61, Parcels 44 and 45; Tax Map 61W, Parcel 10). Property is located west of the City limits, and is situated northwest of the intersection of Hydraulic Road and the proposed southerly extension of Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Tucker said the property is presently zoned R-3, B-1 and R-2. Commercial zoning has been retained on the portion of the property where Eldercare Gardens was built. The remaining land is basically medium density of R-10 which is what is recommended in the Compre- hensive Plan. The medium density will act as a buffer from the higher densities in Jefferson Towne Apartments, Tudor Court, etc. Mr. Russell states opposition to the proposed zoning and asks that the original zoning be kept on the property. 15) Letter from Frederick L. Russell dated December 18, 1979, representing S. W. Heis~ contract purchaser of property owned by Charles N. Hulvey (Tax Map 60, Parcel 53) between Huntington Village Apartments and Ivy Gardens Apartments on Old Ivy Road. Mr. Tucker said the proposed zoning is R-I, whereas the present zoning is A-1. The owner is under the impression that the property is already zoned for a higher density than A-1. The R-1 zoning will actually double the existing density. The Comprehensive Plan recommends even a higher density for this area, but until Old Ivy Road is improved, only the lowest urban area type density is being shown. 16) Letter from Frederick L. Russell dated November 19, 1979, representing Southeast Limited Partnership's property (Tax Map 76, Parcels 46A, 54, 54A, 54M, 54N1 and 54Z) extending from Route 780 (Old Lynchburg Road) on the west to Route 631.(Fifth Street Extended) on the east. Mr. Tucker said the property is presently zoned B-1 on the tract across the road from Sherwood Manor and Country Green. The Planning Commission felt there was too much commercial zoning in the area, so cut the amount of acreage in half. The residential part of the property is currently R-2 and R-3. Under this proposal, the property will be zoned R-15 with some commercial zoning. The owner is asking for comparable zoning to the current zoning. The Comprehensive Plan actually shows the area for low density residential. 17) Letter from Bruce Dotson dated May 19, 1980, asking that zoning on properties south of Woodbrook Shopping Center (Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A, owned by Charles W. Hurt; Tax Map 45, Parcel 104, owned by James McFarland) be changed from HC to CO. Mr. Dotson also requested a text amendment relative to light warehousing.- 18) Letter from George B. McCallum, III, ~dated June 4, 1980, representing Mary Patricia Brown (Tax Map 61, Parcel 119) objecting to C-1 for this property. Mr. Tucker said the staff had recommended HC for this property because they felt the location of this parcel on Route 29 would'generate highway commercial activites. The Planning Commission decided on C-1 because of the proximity of this property to Berkeley, although C-1 is more of a central business district use. Since that time, a commercial subdivision has been approved for this property showing only two access points from Route 29 North. Dr. Iachetta said the Board should discuss this request in more detail at a later time. 19) Letter from George B. McCallum, III, dated June 4, 1980, representing Lloyd F.~ and Patricia Wood (Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E) owners of property on Rio Road where the Putt-Putt Golf Course and Bonanza Restaurant are located. Mr. Tucker said the part of this property along Rio Road is presently zoned B-l,~while the back part is zoned R-3. Under the proposed zoning, the back part of the property is shown for R-10. The owners request R-15. Mr. Tucker said the property is fairly well isolated being separated from Woodbrook Subdivision by steep slopes and there~ is heavy vegetation along the boundary with Albemarle Square ,Shopping Center. The property has access to Rio Road and a portion of Rio Road has already ~been four-laned to where Fashion Square property begins. The Carter property, which is adjacent to this property, was approved for R-12 zoning with a proffer and although it is being shown on the map~as R-10, the proffer runs with the land. The only other R-15 zoning shown in the area is for Squire Hill Apartments. Dr. Iachetta said although there is a topographical break between Woodbrook and this property, there is no visual break. 20) Letter from Edward H. Bain, Jr. attorney for Daniel V. and Virginia E. Flynn, dated June 4, 1980. Georgetown Veterinary Hospital is located on this property. The land is presently zoned R-3 although it is being shown on this map for R-10. The owner requests R-15 zoning. Mr. Tucker said this area is outside of the urban area boundary because the land is located in the watershed area. 21) Letter from H. Edward Chapman, Treasurer of BMC Corporation (Tax Map 76, Parcel 52L), dated June 3, 1980, discussing property containing 0akhill Food Store and Oakhill Trailer Park. Mr. Tucker said the property is currently zoned B-1 and R-3. Proposed zoning is for commercial where the store is located and low density residential of R-2 because that is comparable to existing lot"sizes in the area. Mr. Tucker asked that the Board return to discussion of letter #3. He noted receipt of letters from W. Dexter Whitehead, Dean, University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, dated June 2, 1980, and letter dated June 16, 1980, from G. A. McAlpine, President, Products of University Research, Inc. Mr. Tucker said there is no RTM designation in the proposed ordinance. If the Board wanted to retain such a designation for this property, that category would have to be added to the ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this property is far outside of the growth area proposed for the Ivy Village. Water would be a problem for any intensive developm~ June 4, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 29, 1980) of this property. Mr. Fisher said he understands that funds which will be received for construction of the Crozet Interceptor will have stipulations attached that this interceptor will not be used to extend sewer lines into undeveloped areas; funds are primarily for polluti abatement. Mr. Tucker said in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan, the Ivy area was proposed for a community and was much larger in area and extended to this property. Now there is quite a distance between this property and the Ivy Village area. Mr. Fisher said he would not favor zoning this property for any industrial use until the Board has a good idea how utilities could be provided. Mr. Tucker then handed to the Board the following statistics which the staff had compiled to show differences between existing zoning categories, proposed zoning categories and growth figures shown in the twenty year Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the figures shown under "Comprehensive Plan" are median figures for the ultimate projected growth and not just for ~he five-year planning period. Figures under "existing zoning" and "proposed zoning" arc maximum population figures under the proposed zoning map. Comprehensive Plan Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning URBAN AREAS Neighborhood No. 1 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial 'Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 6,205 15,594 11,391 60 212 204 5o - 4 - 2 - Neighborhood No. 2 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 9,709 36,354 18,618 40 120 96 25 - 2 Neighborhood No. 3 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 8,515 19,439 4,356 165 475 249 70 - 315 Neighborhood No. 4 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 7,440 3,832 4,874 35 78 2 160 152 263 Neighborhood No. 5 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 6,840 18,681 11,120 10 62 39 Neighborhood No. 6 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 5,400 8,681 4,358 50 101 64 - 3 3 - - 34 Neighborhood No. 7 Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 3,850 1,623 1,749 15 14 7 20 - 10 URBAN AREA TOTALS Population Commercial (ac) Commercial Office (ac) Industrial (ac) 47,295 104,204 56,466 375 1,062 661 165 3 332 160 154 297 Crozet Community Population Commercial (ac) Industrial (ac) 13,260 6,450 7,716 8O 18 5O 150 72 108 Hollymead Community Population Commercial (ac) Industrial (ac) 11,310 2,957 4,871 80 23 3 590 325 330 n June 4, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 29, 1980). Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff would make a simple listing to identify those properties in areas where roads are a problem, and those properties where the proposed zoning is inconsistent with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said it might be well to reopen the public hearing to hear from citizens about zoning proposed for their areas of the County. Mr. Roudabush said he felt the Board should discuss the map one neighborhood at a time and let citizens speak about the'zoning on their own parcels of land. He did not think that most people understood they could also speak about the zoning map at the public hearing on May 14. Mr. Henley sa±d he was willing to give a property owner, or his representative, all the time needed to discuss his zoning, but he was not willing to let just anyone speak on any parcel. He felt comments should be limited to individual property owners. Mr. St. John said he was not trying to discourage the Board from looking at the map parcel by parcel, but the reason a comprehensive rezoning is treated differently from a piecemeal downzoning is that it is presumed in a comprehensive rezoning that a lot of'people will eventually want their properties zoned in a different way. An individual does not exhaust his local remedies until he comes in with a plan and applies for a rezoning. If the rezoning is then denied, the applicant is in a position to challenge the Board's ruling in court. Mr. Lindstrom said he had advocated having workshops throughout the County, but he did not disagree with setting a limited arrangement for people who want to speak about their parcels. Dr. Iachetta said he did not think there would be that many comments received, and did not see anything wrong with~having one more public hearing. Mr. Fisher suggested having an advertised public hearing on the zoning map on June 25. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to hold a public hearing to receive comments on the zoning map recommended by the Planning Commission, on June 25 starting at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Not Docketed: Mr. Tucker asked the Board to adopt a resolution of intent relative to an approved RPN for Wildwood Subdivision.' He said he had received a request from Mr. John Berberich, Director of Public Works for the City, concerning the cul-de-sac on Cottonwood Drive. When this RPN plan was originally presented, it showed state-maintained roads. When the studies for this subdivison began, it was ascertained that State requirements for vertical alignment could not be met, and the R?N plan was amended so as to allow private roads. Condition #8 of the RPN plan required that the cul-de-dac be removed, and when the plan was amended, this condition was not removed from the list of conditions. The City wants the cul-de-sac to remain in place. Mr. Tucker said he had talked to Mr. Claude Cotton, the original petitioner, and Mr. Cotton is willing to go along with the City's request. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution of intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the following condition placed on ZMA-78-08, Wildwood RPN: Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of disturbed areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is directed to hold public hearing on this statement of intent and is requested to return its recommendation to the Board at the earliest possible date. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 3. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.