HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198900005 Staff Report 1989-06-13STAFF PERSON: RONALD S. KEELER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 13, 1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JULY 5, 1989
STAFF REPORT: ZMA-89-05 - ANN HORNER
Petition: ANN HORNER petitions the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 2.836 acres from R-2 RESIDENTIAL to C-1 COMMERCIAL.
Property, described as Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel 46A,
is located on the south side of Jarman's Gap Road at the
intersection with Rt. 1201 (Blue Ridge Avenue), in Crozet in
the White Hall magisterial District.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
This site is vacant pastureland encumbered by flood plain
and building site restriction. From available information,
it appears that about 1.5 acres of the 2.836 acres of the
property is outside of the 100 year flood elevation and the
100-foot development prohibition of 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance. From field inspection, it does not appear that
topographic features of this site reasonably delineate the
extent of 100-year flood. Field Verification as to the
extent of the flood plain should be required for any
development. (Sections 30.3.2.2 & 30.3.2.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance) The Planning Staff would not be supportive of
encroachment into either restricted area provided that
reasonable usage of the property is otherwise achievable (It
should be noted that property boundaries were established in
1983, after adoption of 30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT).
This property is currently zoned R-2 Residential. All
surrounding properties are currently zoned for and developed
with residential uses.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL; JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: The
applicant requests unfettered C-1 Commercial Zoning. The
applicant has been made aware of citizen opposition but has
not sought to improve the posture of the petition through
voluntary proffered zoning restriction or a change of
request to a less intensive commercial designation. The
owner has stated that the request has been made "to market
the property for its highest and best use." Justification
for the request is that the "Comprehensive Plan, both that
existing and that which is being reviewed, suggests the best
use of this property to be for Commercial or Community
Service businesses servicing the growing residential
population in this area of the community."
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan states that:
"The main thrust of land use planning for commercial uses is
to strengthen the downtown area of Crozet as a shopping
area. An area has been designated (almost all of the
historic center and a substantial portion of the expanded
town center) to enable the central business area of downtown
Crozet to increase in size and, therefore, be the shopping
center of Crozet. Unless such commercial expansion is
encouraged, the downtown function will be supplanted by a
1
1
suburban type shopping center located somewhere outside of
the community. The area designated in the downtown for
commercial use is intended to include commercial office uses
as well as the traditional retail and service uses
characteristic of a CBD. This should help complement the
historical and commercial area of the downtown./ An
additional ingredient to the future success of strengthening
the downtown will be the County's position with regard to
commercial zoning on Route 250 West outside of the
community; it will be necessary to limit such development to
commercial functions that are solely orientated to the
highway and not to local and convenience shopping and
services or offices New commercial development in the
downtown area will b a combination of filling in between
existing buildings, conversion of buildings from other uses
to commercial and development of new building complexes"
(P 179).
The Land Use Plan for Crozet recommends commercial
designation for this property as well a properties to the
east which are currently zoned and developed for residential
uses. The proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends Community
Service uses for these properties. Neither Comprehensive
Plan proposes specific uses nor specific zoning categories.
STAFF CONMUMT
In this current request, County ordinance and policy are
supportive of commercial designation for this property.
However, the exact nature and extent of commercial
development is to be determined by legislative act of the
Board of Supervisors. The remainder of this report will
address issues raised by the public.
1. Rural Setting: Objection has been raised that
commercial development would be contrary to the rural
setting of Crozet. Crozet has been designated for urban
development in the Comprehensive Plan since 1971.
2. Traffic Increase: Any commercial designation would
increase traffic over existing zoning conditions, unless
accompanied by voluntary restriction as to the intensity of
development. Virginia Department of Transportation stated
that "this request in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan. This section of Route 691 is currently non -tolerable.
A change in zoning from R-2 to C-1 would result in an
increase in traffic from this property. [Virginia Department
of Transportation] recommends that the entrance to this
property align across from the western intersection with
Route 1201." Due to the relatively small acreage and shape
of the area subject to the development, comparative traffic
generation figures are difficult to predict due to the
varying character of C-1 uses.
3. Rezoning Premature: Comment has been made that other
areas in Crozet are currently zoned for commercial usage but
not developed accordingly and that such development should
occur prior to additional rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan
contains no incremental schedule for development. In the
case of Crozet, other public comment has favored additional
commercial zoning outside of the designated growth area
under the opinion that adequate commercial zoning does not
exist within the designated growth area.
4. Speculative Rezoning: Comment has been made that this
rezoning is sought primarily to benefit the property owner
as opposed to the general public. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends commercial usage of this property at some date
during the effectiveness of the plan (ie. 20 years).
Therefore, there should be some perceived public interest
served by such designation. However, the Commission and
Board have not favored speculative rezonings where
sensitivity of development is an issue.
5. Development within flood plain or restricted
development area: As stated under CHARACTER OF THE AREA in
this report, staff opinion is that regardless of the outcome
of this petition reasonable usage of the land can be
afforded without encroachment into areas restricted to
development.
6. Commercial zoning inappropriate in residential area:
As stated earlier, properties to the east although currently
zoned and developed residentially, are recommended for
commercial redevelopment by the Comprehensive Plan.
Properties to the north, west, and south, however, are
intended to remain (or be further developed) as residential.
While the flood plain area provides increased development
setback to buffer residential properties to the west and
south, certain C-1 uses may prove inappropriate to the area
due to noise, hours of.operation, appearance, and other
factors. Under Commercial Land Use Standards, the
Comprehensive Plan recommends that "commercial office uses
should be employed as transitional areas between residential
areas and heavier commercial or industrial areas" (p.130).
STAFF RECOMMUDATION -
Staff opinion is that unrestricted C-1 zoning may prove
inappropriate to the area. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends commercial usage of the property. Staff
recommends that CO Commercial Office zoning would be more
appropriate for the following reasons:
1) The Commercial Office zone is intended as a
transitional zone between residential areas and
more intensive commercial and industrial zones.
As such, uses in the CO zone are intended to be
compatible to adjoining residential areas.
2) The Comprehensive Plan states that "the area
designated in the downtown for commercial use is
intended to include commercial office uses as well
as the traditional retail and service uses
characteristics of a CBD" (p 179).
3) Some letters of objection have indicated that
3
office usage would be more tolerable than
unrestricted C-1 zoning (The majority of objectors
would prefer the property to remain residentially
zoned).
Staff recommends that the property not receive C-1
Commercial zoning, but that CO Commercial Office zoning
would be appropriate. The commission should determine as to
whether or not CO zoning is acceptable to the applicant.
Should the applicant choose to pursue C-1 zoning, staff
recommends denial of ZMA-89-05 Ann Horner.
4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
55
57
lGLE N FEET
"` �` �` . '- WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 56
1
. ALBEMARLE COUNTY
2
3 3D
♦C
4A
4
r-
J
49 )
S
6
B
to 9
��/ 7S91l1 ��1y4
E
73Ef�3
�lal21 �
SECTION 368 / 7lB91
lA1MEL HILL! /
C9D2ET fLEM. 4C1100. /
73F 72
SO
74G 73C, 71
73A o'
76 149 - 7A ° 4
12 / /i. ,j �/� 7 y 3
Te\ \ 75 2T)"
2
15 12 G ' / 80 114 °per
81
B2
pt. ° 103A III 112 I I S
16 ®3 84 83 B
` \ \2p2 1
12H03E 1i 6 1
10103 110
\`� R utA
j4 \89
\ Be Sv ` Bb \ ` BS 1 \ wl 69/
9 7 iou 040 - IIB
_ � 8
9S 9\1� - 104 109
20C II
6 - 12 120 94 � \ I o*o � 9P 120 -
65
IO�
124
9
24F ,90B 91 \ �' -�t� -1 10�-
90A 92 2
107 `1/ 122 2
4 3 _ li 93 \\ 8 w2 i0¢A , IOS ,104 . �1121
6 st 5 x ,21 �22 24A��� 1 96 97 106'
24B 240 1 4 90 9%
Is 1 P IM1
Ayel
ITB 24, 63
riBA'23'23A 60
4 \�
.. 17 37 9 3�9, OA 6 Epp
1s 27
IS 28 36 39 �41 5 57
26A \ /�" 41�43 •�/-
29 355 42 1
34 3 A�440 53
25 4{A 4 I 52
28 Y
Ex Ay
51
I I / SYA✓ s'�
26B 3D Ay,2� - \ 5
/ 3Wx iy,�1 Ah 49
Arp P� 4e
v
46 �
6
0SMALL ACREAGE &WAYLAND PARK EXT.
�(DEEDBOOK409pg.391) �-
®2 WAYLAND PARK - CROZET DEV. CO. / --
D.B.317, Pg.215
®3 ST. GEORGE ACRES D B. 408 -416
56A(2)
SCALE IN FE"'ET WHITE HALL DISTRICT
CROZET INSERT SECTION 56A(I)
"° �°