Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 02 89 PC MinutesMay 2, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 2, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. -Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior Planner_; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 18, 1989 were approved as corrected. Mr. John Pullen announced that he had resigned his position as Planner and would be leaving the County, effective May 5. CONSENT AGENDA Nathaniel H. Crocker - Proposal to subdivide an existing parcel into two lots of 1.706 acres and 0.605 acres. Access is to be from existing state roads. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 6A is located on the northwestern corner of.the intersection of Jarman's Gap Road (Rt. 691) and Blue Ridge Avenue (Rt. 1201) in Crozet. Zoned R-6, Residential in the White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-89-20 John G. Hart - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to locate a single wide mobile home on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 103, Parcel 31 (part of) is located on the south side of Rt. 620 t 1.5 miles east of its intersection with Rt. 795. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. The report explained that the applicant was proposing to use the mobile home as a temporary residence during weekends and vacations. The.report pointed out that "historically, mobile homes have been approved when there is a need for permanent housing and not for temporary use." The Chairman invited applicant comment. -9&'3 May 2, 1989 Page 2 -Mr. Samuel Hart addressed the Commission. He explained that the mobile home was intended for weekend and vacation use. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Dorothy Marsh, a neighboring property owner, expressed her opposition to the proposal. She felt it would devalue her property. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark noted that he was a firm supporter of this type of proposal if it was necessary to provide a permanent residence. However, he was afraid approval of this type application, (for a vacation residence), could be setting a precedent. N.1s. Diehl agreed. Mr. Bowerman noted that historically this type of application had not been viewed favorably by the Commission. Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-20 for John G. Hart be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-21 Covesville First Baptist Church - Requestin accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for the construction of a new church facility on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 6E, is located on the south side of.Rt. 805 approximately 2000 feet west of its intersection with Rt. 29 at Covesville. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with criteria for issuance of a special use permit, and it is staff's opinion that the expanded church in this location would not be obtrusive nor out of character with other uses in the area.':' Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staff's report focused on the issue of traffic and compatibility with adjacent property. Commission comments centered on the road. The staff report explained: "Most churches are located on an existing state road. However, in this case.staff supports approval with a private road to serve mixed uses, the church and a dwelling. This is based on the following: 1. The church presently exists, therefore it is not the introduction of this situation but a moderate expansion of one use. 2. There is only one (1) other user to share this road. ag SY May 2, 1989 Page 3 3. The segment of private road used by both is only approximately 150 feet in length. With approval of this petition, staff recommends a private road maintenance agreement. To be equitable, the church will assume most or all maintenance responsibility for the portion they use." - The applicant was represented by Mr. Roselle Smith. He stated the staff report adequately represented the applicant's position. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he agreed with staff's analysis and moved that SP-89-21 for the Covesville First Baptist Churct be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: ]. Seating capacity to be determined by adequate septic system area, not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of 180 persons. 2. Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other non -worship uses, will require amendment to this petition. 3. Administrative approval of the site plan after review by the Site Review Committee. 4. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-89-23 Mothers Care of Virginia, Inc. - Request in accordance with Section 31.2.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend Condition No. 5 of SP-412 as it relates to signs. Property, described as Tax Map 61X1, Parcel 5 is located in the southern portion of the intersection of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons PUD. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Keeler corrected a mistake in the staff report, i.e. the applicant was requesting an increase in allowable sign area from 4 square feet to 14 (not 40) square feet. Mr. Keeler also asked that the first statement under the heading "Staff Recommendation" be withdrawn. He explained: "The applicants consulted with Zoning and then fabricated the sign based on the information that they felt they received from the Zoning Department." Staff's recommendation was as follows: "Staff is of the opinion that the current sign area of four square feet is appropriate to this site and that the requested 14 square foot sign is inappropriate and larger than necessary for identification purposes. Therefore, staff recommends disapproval of this special use permit as it relates to the request for a 14 square foot sign." May 2, 1989 Page 4 Regarding the issue of setback, the report stated: "Staff recommends approval of SP-89-23 as it relates to sign setback. This can be accomplished by adding another condition to SP-412." At the end of the staff report, Mr. Keeler stated he had been in contact with the applicant and felt the applicant was agreeable to altering the sign to reduce it to 8 square feet which could be done without losing either the message or the picture. Mr. Stark asked if Mr. Keeler was aware of any other situations where a sign had been altered as suggested by Mr. Keeler or where a 2-sided sign (2' x 2') had been changed to a one-sided sign (2' x 4'). Mr. Keeler responded he was not aware of such a case. He added that he did not think this would be setting a precedent in Four Seasons because a variance has already been granted for a majority of the signs in this development. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Larry mctiwaln. He presented photographs showing the location of the sign on the property. He explained thatit had been put in place as a result of a misunderstanding between the County and the applicant. He noted that though the applicant would be willing to accept staff's.suggested alteration of the sign as a compromise it was still the applicant's desire that the sign be approved as requested. Regarding the issue of setback, he stressed that it was very important that the facility be easily identifiable by emergency vehicles. Ms. Coster, the applicant, addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Stark's question, she stated there had never been an emergency situation to date. However, she stressed that one of the main concerns is that the facility be easily found by emergency vehicles. She presented a petition signed by adjacent property owners which indicated they had no objection to the proposed sign. She called the Commission's attention to several letters of support for her business. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons expressed their opposition to the proposed sign: ti1r. John Sherwood, President of the four Seasons Patio Association and Mr. Gordon McKeeman, Common Areas Chairman of the Four Seasons Patio Homes Association. They objected on the grounds of the "constant en- croachment on their residential area by larger and larger signs." They asked that the regulations be upheld. Both stressed there was no opposition to the day care business, but only to the large sign. The following persons, parents with children enrolled in the facility, expressed their support for the proposal: Ms. Beverly Harston; GIs. Tracey Thorson; Ms. Shelia O'Donnell Good; Ms. Janet Haberman; and Dr. James Banks. The all stressedthe high quality of child care that the applicant provides. Other reasons they felt the request should be approved -were: (1) One advantage of the PL'D concept is that it allows flexibility; and (2) The applicant was under the impression that the sign did comply with zoning regulations. May 2, 1989 Page 5 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman explained the Commission's role in dealing with the request: "I want to make it clear that the action of the BZA, which is a separate body from this and one totally distinct --the members of that body are appointed by the Courts not Albemarle County officials --and their action is to give relief from the Zoning Ordinance. The action that's before us tonight is to give relief from a legislative action of the Board of Supervisors in 1974, that being the creation of this PUD. This is one of the items that was attached to it. It's staff's interpretation that the only way this condition can be amended is by the Planning Commission and by the .Board of Supervisors --specifically by the Board of Supervisors. Our recommendation is advisory to the Board." In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Keeler stated this particular lot has never been used for residential purposes, "not since the creation of Four Seasons." Mr. Bowerman asked if those opposed had considered the possibility of a smaller sign. He hoped it might be possible to find "some common ground." Mr. Sherwood replied and explained that the applicant had been requested to reduce the size of the sign "in the beginning and what we were greeted with was the request for variance. We made our overtures in the beginning so that this hearing might not even have been necessary." At this point the sign was brought forward and measured to determine if it could be altered to a maximum size of 2' x4'. It was determined it was possible to reduce the sign to 8 square feet. Mr. Bowerman stated he could support the request if the sign were reduced as suggested. He also indicated he could support the setback variance. Mr. Bowerman added: "If we can't reach a compromise, I'm inclined to go back with the original four square foot sign as proposed in the condition. But I think if we can have some common ground, we can all agree." (Ms. Diehl agreed.) Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if this was acceptable. (There was no reply.) Ms. Diehl stated: "I would like to suggest that perhaps we could reach our conclusion and if we deny this particular petition then they can alter their position before they reach the Board." This approach was acceptable to the rest of the Commission. Ms. Diehl noted that she was in favor of "maintaining the requirements as they are stated" and therefore she moved that SP-89-23 for Mothers Care of Virginia, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Stark seconded the motion. Discussion: .3� May 2, 1989 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman inter rEted his. Diehl's motion as follows: "So what you're suggesting is tha �we would do here is deny this application to the Board and then if the applicant so chooses to modify the proposal before it gets to the Board of Supervisors they could do so in the spirit of what we've discussed tonight." Ms. Diehl, responded: "That should have been approached before it reached the Commission. I don't think it's appropriate to bring it to us in this particular fashion:" Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the Commission basing its decision "on the prospect of a compromise between two different bodies." He felt it was the Commission's role to interpret the ordinance and decide if it is appropriate, given the facts before us and the existing conditions, rather than to rely and base our decisions on whether two ... groups with different opinions are able to reach some sort of compromise." He expressed concern about precedent, but some empathy because other variances had been granted. He also noted that this particular property had never been used as a residence. He felt that, "as a practical matter," a 4 square foot sign was probably not very effective for the applicant's purposes." He concluded: "So I am a little uncomfortable with just turning thumbs down with no indication to the Board as to what our feelings really are. I think that I sense that we have a feeling that we'd like to find some ground for granting a variance to the special use permit." Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with fir. Rittenhouse to some degree. She agreed that there was a safety factor involved and because of that a case could be made for allowing a somewhat larger sign. She stated: "I feel it's appropriate for us to make a decision one way or the other and if there is to be a mechanism for compromise let it be worked out between now and the Board. But I would agree that there appears to be some latitude for this use from a safety .factor, but not as requested in the petition." Mr. Rittenhouse asked if it was within the Commission's latitude to have recommended approval with a condition on the size of the sign. Mr. Bowerman responded that it could have been handled either way. He added that if the motion for denial passed, "the minutes will clearly show what our position is, even though.the will of the Commission was not to vote for approval with this modification and leave that to the applicant to so modify the proposal before the Board. I'm hearing from staff that that's probably the cleanest way to do it." Mr. Horne responded: "I think it's probably clean at the Commission level, ...but when it gets to the Board level the Board must know what the proposal is. They cannot impose a condition.thatthe applicant says they do not wish to comply with. They could have to propose something different and say they will comply with that new modified condition when it gets to the Board or the Board must act strictly on what they've applied for." Mr. Bowling confirmed this was correct. Mr. Horne confirm-ed the applicant had the latitude to modify the proposal before the Board hearing. 0 May 2, 1989 Page 7 Mr. Horne stressed that it was very important that the applicant decide what their actual application to the Board is to be, "because the Board cannot change that and the applicant then say that they do not wish to comply with that condition." Mr. Stark noted that when the Board reads the Commission minutes it will be clear that the Commission "is looking for an 8 square foot sign vs. one that has 4 square feet on each of two sides." Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the cleanest way to deal with the request was to deny it and give the applicant the opportunity to modify the proposal before the Board hearing. Mr. Keeler pointed out to the applicant that if a new proposal was to be submitted it would need to be delivered to staff, in writing, no later than May 9. Mr. McElwain, the applicant's representative, affirmed this was acceptable. Mr. Rittenhouse asked that the record show that he could support an 8 square foot sign. Ms. Diehl noted that though she would consider a larger sign.than 4 square feet, she was uncertain as to whether or not she would approve an 8 square foot sign. The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for denial. The motion for denial passed unanimously. The meeting recessed from 8:50 to 9:00. SP-89-25 Crozet Church of God - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a church and parsonage on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A, is located in the southwest quadrant at the intersection of Rt. 250 and 1-64; accessed on the southwest side of St. Rt. 824. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. AND SP-89-26 Crozet Church of God -- Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(7) and 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for day care facilities in a proposed church facility. Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A, is located in the southwest quadrant at the intersection of Rt. 250 and 1-64; accessed on the southwest side of St. Rt. 824. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The applicant was requesting deferral. IV? May 2, 1989 Page 8 Nils. Diehl moved, seconded by fir. Michel, that SP-89-35 and SP-89-26 for Crozet Church of God be deferred to May 9, 1989. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-88-22 Great Eastern Management Company - Request in accordance with Section 33.2.1.of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone, with proffers, 1.8 acres from RA to HC; 1.6 acres from RA to PD-SC; 6.137 acres from HC to PD-SC;and 2.7 acres from HC to RA. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 109B, south side of U.S. Rt. 250 approximately one mile east of its intersection with Rts. 240 and 635. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the .staff report. The staff recommended denial of the request for the following reasons: (1) "The proposed plan is the type ofsuburban type of shopping center discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan and does not provide for sensitivity to the environment and protection of the watershed recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; (2) In order to allow the proposed development a wholesale waiver of the building site requirements must be granted. The proposed development plan constitutes over develop- ment of the site due to excessive grading, cutting and filling and the number of waivers that must be granted in order for development to occur; (3) Approval of this rezoning request may set a precedent allowing for the re-establishment of the commercial zoning that existed prior to the Board of Supervisors comprehensive rezoning; (4) Approval of this plan will require the extension of both water and sewer. In .addition the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area must be amended in order to include areas currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. It is staff's opinion that it would be unwise for the County to build the Lickinghole Creek Basin while approving increased development which does not drain to the proposed basin." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. George Gilliam. Mr. Gilliam gave a lengthy presentation which included the use of slides. His comments included the following: --Regardless of the outcome of this rezoning request, something is going to be built on this property. --A "small" shopping center is proposed. (Mr. Gilliam presented a graph comparing the size of the proposed shopping center with existing shopping centers in the area. The proposed center was the smallest.) --If the property is developed under existing conditions, it will be slightly smaller than what is being requested. --If developed under existing conditions, all of the buildings will have to be "squeezed forward of the small stream and the develop- ment.will have to be placed as close to U.S. Rt. 250 as allowable." --If the rezoning request is approved, "we can greatly exceed the requirements of the Scenic Highway Ordinance by placing the buildings much further back from Rt. 250 than is presently required. To be able to do this we need to be able to use the small additional parcel of land behind that which is currently zoned Commercial. That is the essence of our request --to allow us to push back from the highway requires rezoning 1.7 acres from RA to PD-SC and we've proffered a return of 2.7 acres from HC back to RA. In addition,to meet the immediate and long range needs of Blue Ridge Building Supply they have already petitioned that 1.8 acres be rezoned from RA to HC for material -36 O May 2, 1989 Page 9 storage and they proffered to limit the use of that property to material storage so that it can never become part of this shopping center. The net reduction, after the swaps, in RA zoning is less than three-quarters of one acre." --What is proposed is aesthetically more pleasing than what can be done by right. --The Comprehensive Plan map (1982 Plan) shows this area as Commercial. --The proposal meets Comprehensive Plan recommendations in the following ways: The leading tenant for this type shopping center should be a supermarket, as is proposed; it should average 50,000 square feet-- 60,500 square feet is proposed; the proposal is comfortably above the minimum site size of three acres. --In addition to the Plan recommending the protection of downtown Crozet, it also says (pg. 113) to "establish convenient, accessible, and attractive commercial concentrations in a variety of locations in the County." --Currently, anyone wishing to shop someplace besides downtown Crozet must drive either to Charlottesville (13 miles) or Waynesboro (13 miles). This results in a possible tax revenue loss of $40,000 to $80,000 to Albemarle County. --He quoted the following from page 180 of the Comprehensive Plan in relation to downtown Crozet: "A community government sub -center should be located in Crozet in or adjacent to the historic center to reinforce the commercial downtown functions. A location has been suggested on the western edge of the commercial land use area." Page 179: "An area has been designated to enable the central business area of downtown Crozet to increase in size and therefore be the shopping center for Crozet. Unless such commercial expansion is encouraged the downtown function will be supplanted by a suburban -type shopping center located somewhere outside the community." Mr. Gilliam asked: "Where, according to the Comprehensive Plan will we put this new government sub -center and the commercial development which is necessary to keep a suburban -type shopping center at bay?" He answered this question with the following quote from the Plan: ""It will have to be a combination of filling in between existing buildings, conversion of existing buildings from other uses to commercial and development of new building complexes." --Downtown Crozet road network is completely inadequate and intolerable. --Changes recommended in the 1982 Plan for the downtown Crozet area have not been made and the Plan clearly warns "that unless changes are made in downtown to make it more attractive and unless land is found for additional commercial development, a suburban -type center will develop." He stressed that those changes have not been made, "either by local government, concerned citizen groups, or by the merchants themselves." --The County has favored PD-SC zoning over EC zoning because it allows review of an entire project all at once and allows overall planning. (Mr. Gilliam compared the two zoning categories.) He stated this developer requested PD-SC because of his awareness of the County's preference. --The request will allow buildings to be pushed back from the Scenic Highway so as to greatly exceed the requirements of the Scenic Highway Ordinance. The proposal is "a whole lot more consistent with the character of the scenic highway than what is there now and what could be constructed by right if this petition is not approved." 1'�?b / May 2, 1989 Page 10 --Regarding reservoir protection, he stressed that any piping of the stream must be done in strict compliance with State and Federal permits and local ordinances. He stated: "(This proposal's) plan for stormwater detention is larger, relative to its catchment area, than is the proposed Lickinghole Creek Detention Basin, relative to its drainage area. The potential exists to provide reservoir protection superior to that provided for the Lickinghole Creek Basin, not only for our project but for the entire 90+ acre drainage area.of which it is a part." --"Nothing which is planned is contrary to sound engineering or watershed management practices. On the contrary, we offer the possibility to provide watershed management protection not otherwise providedfor or available for the parcels which are inside the growth area but outside the Lickinghole Creek Drainage Basin without a costly aid impractical underground story: sewer system." --In contrast to downtown Crozet roads which have a difficult time accommodating present traffic, the stretch of Rt. 250 serving this proposed development is one of the few tolerable stretches of road in the County, and has excellent sight distance. --Re ardin t e issue f_ recedent, he stated that the Comprehensive Plan .prov9 ces. or ongy1fiirgloparcel and a few others which are already developed on Rt. 250W. --"This petition does not seek to rezone large areas of downtown Crozet and thus change the character of that historic area. It does not threann to dump thousands of cars in downtown Crozet adding to the already congested area. This request is non-invasive." Mr. Gilliam also presented a pcition of support containing 1,100 signatures. The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the rezoning: Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environment Council; 'Mr. John Marston; Mr. Bill Sublet; Ms. Ellen Woff; Air. Brian Williamson; Ms. Janna Hall; Mr. William Colony, President of Citizens for Albemarle; :r. Ken Thompson; Mr. Larry Brown; Mr. Bob Johnson; Mr. Scott Peyton; his. Gertrude Peyton; Mr. Roy Patterson; Mr. William Werling; Ms. Sally Thomas,.representing the League of Women Voters; and lr. Heinz Adam. (Approximately 30-50 persons present indicated their opposition to the request by standing at Mr. Brown's request.) Reasons for opposition were as follows: --Precedent for other rezonings on Rt. 250. --Re-zoning is not needed because existing HC zoning allows for a restaurant, grocery, bank, etc. Proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site. --Contrary to the recommendations of.the Comprehensive Plan. --Negative impact on the watershed. --Will allow urban -type development along a scenic highway. --Because of close proximity to schools, increased traffic will create a serious safety hazard. --Threat to downtown Crozet. --Draw on groundwater. --Adverse impact on quality of life. --Proposal does not show a sensitivity to land or development, i.e. it will not conform to sound erosion and sediment control practices. 362 May 2, 1989 Page 11 The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed their support for the request: Mr. Walter Young; Mr. Gene Baldwin; Ms. Susan Capess; Mr. Ken Depold; and Mr. Allen Humdaugh. (Three additional ladies stood to express their support for the proposal but their names were inaudible.) Reasons for support were as follows: --PD-SC zoning will put more restrictions on development than will existing HC zoning .and will maximize the safety of the development. --Is a unique request and therefore will not set a precedent. --Will protect the scenic highway because it will move development back further from the highway. --Opposition is based on a fear of competition by Crozet merchants. --Is far enough away that it will not adversely effect downtown Crozet. Will provide additional shopping and will not replace existing shopping. --Will result in no net increase in commercial land. --Will minimize congestion on Rt. 250 and will reduce traffic congestion in downtown Crozet. --Will provide job opportunities for local youngsters. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Gilliam to make the petition to which he had referred available to the planning staff so that it could be viewed by the public. (Mr. Gilliam indicated agreement.) Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to assess the realistic prospect of growth in downtown Crozet. Mr. Cilimberg responded. He explained that Comprehensive Plan recommendations have been designed to address some of the problems which have been brought up. He stated that extensive road improvements and new road projects were needed and these would cost "public dollars." He noted there was a problem with the underpass in downtown Crozet. He continued. "There are amenities in downtown that are desirable and we'd like to see occur in the future. The key for use in looking at downtown is that it is a con- centrated central business district. It does have in -fill opportunities. It has re -development opportunities. It may not occur in six months or a year or five years, but they do exist. The opportunities are there and many of the improvements are oriented to making the downtown better and to providing a better central business district. It's obviously going to take more than just us putting lines and colors on a map for some of that to be realized. ... I think the public aspect of all this is to try to show what can be done to make the area viable and this is our approach. The Planning Commission, I know, has deliberated over it quite a bit, not only in the last planned development, but also in the review of the current plan that now is before the Board of Supervisors. We talked a great deal about the central business district function and continuing to prioritize that function and do things that would be supportative of that function. I think it's up to the public in spending some of those dollars for the improvements and it's up to the private sector in making the decisions as to what kind of investments they can make in the downtown area to make it a more viable area. It's really two roles here and it's hard to predict when it's all going to happen." .36 3 May 2, 1989 Page 12 Mr. Keeler added that recent plans of which he is aware include a developer who is interested in 15,000 square feet of commercial development.downtown and there is currently pending a rezoning petition to rezone 2L2 acres for commercial development in the downtown area. Mr. Keeler added: "I believe that the comments in the Comprehensive Plan are very similar to comments that were made to the City by a consultant on (the City's) downtown in 1970. That is, you can put money into the downtown area but you better be wary of suburban shopping centers. It's 20 years later and the City is still wrestling with what to do with its downtown. ...maybe we could learn from the City in that regard." Mr. Stark made the following statement: "We worked for two years to develop a revised Comprehensive Plan that will soon be adopted. It was supported by numbers of people who attended public meetings at various places throughout the County. I am not persuaded by the applicant's argument that we as a Planning Commmission should set aside that planning and our deliberations. Therefore, I am against the applicant's request and would support denial." Mr. Michel asked Mr. Gilliam to read the statement that was on the petition which was circulated by the applicant. fir. Gilliam complied and read: "We the undersigned wish to express our support for the development of the proposed Blue Ridge Shopping Center on U.S. Rt. 250 near Crozet." Mr. Michel stated he was curious as to whether or not the petition spoke to the requested expansion. He determined that it did not but rather spoke to support of a shopping center in that area. Mt. !Michel concluded that he must follow staff's recommendation and vote against the request. Ms. Diehl stated she supported staff's recommendation. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if -any comparison had been made of traffic generation figures for proposed rezoning vs. by -right development. Staff responded negatively. Mr. Rittenhouse also asked staff to compare available buildable area under existing zoning vs. PD-SC zoning. Staff estimated buildable area under HC zoning to be approximately 36,000 square feet vs. 60,000 square feet -for PD-SC zoning. ?1r. Bowerman summarized his position as follows: "It seems to me that there is a certain amount of logic and truth that I've heard tonight on both sides of the argument. But I think the preponderance of the arguments and the truth lies in favor of denial of this application and upholding of the Comprehensive Plan. This Commission has worked hard on the development of the Plan. The Community, through it's elected representatives have approved the Plan and they're currently working to approve the current Plan. If the Plan is to work we have to allow it to work.. Everybody that you ask that lives in the urban .area of this community says that one of the reasons they moved here besides the University and besides ?Monticello and other things is the beauty of the area. And I know that if we continue to develop the rural areas we'll end up with one big urban area --we'll end up with Fairfax County. In the Plan that's not contemplated. What's contemplated in the Plan is sparsely populated rural areas with more densely populated growth areas that surround the urban areas and people that live in the rural area make a choice. They make a choice to have lesser services. It is a choice that no one forces them to make but they themselves when they move to the rural areas. But in order to make May 2, 1989 Page 13 Crozet work, Crozet has to have an ample amount of commercial. We have attempted to provide that in the current Comprehensive Plan recommendations. In the event that it isn't sufficient then that part of the Plan has to be changed. If we start to develop areas outside of our growth areas with commercial, we are going to be encouraging a rural population and we are going to be compounding the costs of providing services to that rural population which this community has decided it does not want to do. And one step at a time applications like this tend to foster that. ...It seems to me that the only way that we can preserve the rural areas and provide amenities to the areas where we want growth to occur is to hold the line. I think both the rural and the urban people benefit by doing that. I think the Plan is correct. I think the applicant has reasonable usage of this property with the current zoning. It is not as much as he would like to have but I think it's reasonable. It recognizes the zoning as it exists and provides 30,000 square feet of usage, and I think it's adequate.... I'm not in favor df the rezoning." Mr. Bowerman added that the specifics were outlined in the staff report. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was not in favor of the rezoning. However, he noted that he did have concerns as to how the property will develop by right and its effect on the scenic highway. Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-88-22 for Great Eastern Management Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Schools Long Range Committee Report - Mr. Bowerman called the Commission's attention to a meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 4, for an initial briefing of this report. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1I:I5 p.m. bS Jri� DISON elvm- � mm S&.T'