1965-02-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDINANCE CARRIED eVER RE: SEC. 4~ ART. !il, APP. II PUBLIC HEARING RE= R£ZONING EAST SIDE EMMET ST. ORDINANCE CA~RI£D OVER RE: SEC, 4, ART. II1~ APP, !1 oF THESE LOTS AND THE EXISTING DUPLEXES AND APARTMENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THEN, HR. GORDON F. HARRISON~ HR. ROBERT HACCALLUN~ HR, JANES E. BOARD AND RD B, NONTGONERY~ JR.~ PROPERTY OWNERS ON SHELBY DRIVE~ WERE REPRESENTATIVES OF A GROUP OF CITIZENS OPPOSING THE REZONING. IT NAS THEIR CONTENTION THAT AN INCREASE IN DUPLEXES WOULD NOT ONLY ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT WOULD CAUSE A FURTHER DECLINE IN THE VALUES DF THEIR PROPERTY. AFTER THIS DISCUSSION MR. SCRIBNER POINTED OUT TO COUNCIL THAT DUE Te THE LARGE NUMBER OF NONCONFORNI~N.;.G USES PRESENTLY EXISTING IN THE SUBDIVISION AND THE NATURE OF THE LOTS TH'EMSE~LVES THAT IT WOULD BE REABONABLE TO PLACE THESE LOTS IN THE SAME SITUATION AS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ANNEXATIDN~ WHICH WOULD INCLUDE DUPLEXES. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE AHENDING AND REENACTING THE DISTRICT HAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE !11 OF APPENDIX !1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE~ 1959, BY THE REZONING OF 11 LOTS FRONTING ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH' BERKSHIRE ROAD" WAS OFFERED BY HR. HAGGERTY, SECONDED BY HR. RENNDLDS~ AND CARRIED OVER TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS ALSO HELD ON A PROPOSAL TO REZONE TWO PARCELS OF bAND BETWEEN MEADOW CREEK AND THE VD H. EARHART PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF EMMET STREET. A COMMUNICATION WAS PRESENTED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CHANGE · MR. WILLIAM Co E~ATTLE~ ADDRESSED COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF A GROUP OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN MEADOWBROOK HILLS OPPOSED TO THE REZONING. HE PRESENTED A PETITION FROM OVER 140 PROPERTY OWNERS OPPOSING THE PROPOSED REZONING. HE STATED THAT THERE WAS OPPOSITION TO EARHART 'STREET AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH STREET, BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD~ WOULD BE AGAINST THE GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BY CREATING A GREAT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ALONG MEADOW- BROOK ROAD. HE MAINTAINED THAT THE REZONING WOULD BE SPOT ZONING AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN ONE OF THE CITY'S FINEST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND THE B-1 BUSINESS DISTRICT. HE ALSO 'QUESTIONED WHETHER THE COUNCIL HAD THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT AHEAD OF TIME TO DO THE REZONINGo MR. MOUNT STATED THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRACT WITH ANYONE REQUIRING A REZDNING AND THAT COUNCIL WAS FREE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT EXPANSION OF BUSINESS ALONG ROUTE 29 THAT THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE REZONED B-lo ~E FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ALL OF THE ~OOD PROPERTY COULD BE REZONED E~-] WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SINCE THE DISTRICT LINE PASSED THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY. MR. HOUNT ALSO MENTIONED THAT COUNCIL INTENDED TO USE THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE CITY PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION DF AN ARMORY AND FOR PLAYGROUND AREA, AND THIS PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PROPERTIES .ZONED R-3 TO THE NORTH~ CREATED A SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER ZONE FROM THE E~-I BuslNE~ DISTRICT. HE FURHTER STATED THAT IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE FOR THIS LAND TO REMAIN R-1 AND THAT IT WOULD BE TO THE BEST WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR IT TO BE ZONED B']. THE CITY ATTORNEY TOLD COUNCIL THAT THIS WOULD NOT, IN HIS OPINIONj BE SPOT ZONING SINCE IT WAS AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING DISTRICT AND BENEFITED THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. MRo ~CRIBNER CONCURRED IN THIS AND FURTHER MENTIONED THAT HE FELT THIS REZONING WAS BASED ON AN oVERALL PLAN FOR THIS PART OF THE ROUTE ~9 AREA BY PLACING THE LAND IN THE BEST CT TO WHICH IT ~AS~ADAPTED. USE D I STR I AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE AHENDiI~ AND REENACTING THE DISTRICT MAP INCORPORATED IN SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE Iil OF APPENDIX II OF THE CODE OF THE CITY