Two large cases were carried over once again. Development is picking up in the Green Springs area, with a proposal to partition and redevelop the Meat & Three property waiting in the wings, and the Buddy Wade building getting a retail tenant, once rezoned.
Members present: Billy Higginbotham, chair, Jeffrey Foster, James Riddle, Brady Wilson, Fred Azbik, and Battalion Chief Nickolas Hill.
Absent: Mike Brandt, vice chair, Britt Thames, and Mark Woods.
Staff present: Donna Bridges, board clerk, Fred Goodwin, planner, and Vanessa McGrath and Greg Cobb, building, engineering and zoning department.
Audience attendance: 21
Carried over: Two big cases slated tonight after prior postponements were carried over again to May, including 1) Two parcels involved in a 6-lot subdivision on hilltop property overlooking Berry Road, called Abbey Lane; and 2) A proposed division and development of commercial property (Meat & Three, etc., property) between Green Springs Highway and Columbiana Road.
Recommended rezoning property on Palisades from office to retail: Over the objections of one neighbor, the commission agreed to recommend rezoning the Buddy Wade State Farm property–a house at 285 Palisades Boulevard converted to an insurance office–from C-1 Office Building District to GURD, Green Springs Renewal District. The original request was to rezone to C-2, Neighborhood Shopping District to allow a 5-station hair salon. It was unclear why the applicant preferred the more stringent GURD zoning. Any rezoning is subject to City Council approval after a final public hearing.
Approved final plat pending a list of contingencies for a subdivision addition at 818-822 Columbiana Road: The left side neighbor presented a list of concerns and demands to the developer of a 10-unit townhouse development at 818-822 Columbiana Road. The first half of the development is underway on the right side, with six units (shown). Final plat for four additional units planed on the left side were being decided tonight.
The neighbor complained of ground erosion after trees were cut, that her gravel driveway had been damaged during the clearing and grading process, that she foresaw parking problems on her and her neighbors’ property because of inadequate parking in the development; and that a 36-inch retaining wall was insufficient to halt water draining off the development.
She also asked that the rear of the townhouses facing her property be uniformly fenced and landscaped for buffer and privacy.
In response, the developer agreed to investigate the driveway claims, but pointed out the development had six more parking spaces than the two spaces per unit required by law. He proffered the requested rear fencing, adding that the fence, being only 10 feet from the rear of the building, didn’t leave enough room for landscaping. However, he said a retaining wall was planned later in construction.
In questioning, Mr. Riddle said something should be done to prevent erosion from a drain pipe outlet on the property, and suggested riprap. The developer said the ditch would be sodded, which should be sufficient for the low velocity of flow.
The vote of approval was further contingent on the City Council accepting the street as public; a $10,000+ performance bond for the street finishing; and that the covenants and restrictions were submitted to the city.
Divided a large residential property on Lucerne Boulevard into two smaller lots: The curious case of 169 Lucerne Boulevard has been heard twice in the BZA in February and March, each time being rejected after drawing lots of neighborhood opposition. The original request was to divide the large parcel, on which there is one house, into three smaller and odd-shaped lots that fit together like puzzle pieces. The BZA kicked back the request based in part on the irregularity of the lot shapes and a poor presentation by the builder/prospective owner. On the second visit, the developer proposed three equally sized and shaped lots. Neighbors, however, voiced persuasive objections about the small lot sizes and concerns about building over storm and sanitary sewer lines than ran across the property.
In this visit, the developer has decided to divide the parcel into only two sections, which result in two lots meeting the city’s size and average width regulations and which will need no variances when built. There was one speaker tonight from 321 Lucerne, although others were in attendance. The speaker urged the commission to protect the property from any development that would harm the land or utilities.
Before the vote of approval, the developer agreed the house would be built within setback and other zoning regulations, needing no variances from the BZA.