Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198900005 Other 1989-06-13ZMA-89-5 Ann Horner - Request to rezone 2.836 acresm R-2, Residential to C1, Commercial. operty, described as Tax Map 50 , Section 1, Farcel 46A, is located on the south side of Jarman's Gap Road at the intersection with Rt. 1201. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from May 16, Planning Commission Meeting. Before present the staff report, Mr. Keeler explained that staff had received a letter which questioned whether proper notice had been given for this petition, particularly that the property had not been properly posted. Mr. Keeler explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the property be posted at least 15 days prior to public hearing. The Chairman invited applicant comment on this issue. Ms. Virginia Gardner represented the applicant. She explained that the property had been posted prior to the original hearing but had not been posted again after the item was deferred. L� June 13, 1989 Page 2 The Chairman asked Mr. Bowling to comment. (Mr. Keeler interjected that the item had been deferred to a date specific so readvertisement was not required.) Mr. Bowling determined that the posting had been made 15 days prior to the original hearing date. He stated: "The intent of the Ordi- nance is to post notice to the public ... and if the applicant certifies that the property was posted as required by the Ordinance then there has been a good faith attempt to meet the requirements of the Ordinance and that plus the published notice plus the letters sent to the adjoining property owners I think meets the intent and spirit of the Ordinance and statutes. ... I think the Commission can proceed." Mr. Bowerman noted that the property should be posted again before the Board of Supervisors hearing. Mr. Bowerman also confirmed that adjacent property owners are re -notified when an item is deferred. Mr. Bowerman determined that the item was properly before the Commission. Mr. Keeler then presented the staff report. Staff's opinion was that "unrestricted C-1 zoning may prove inappropriate to the area and that CO Commercial Office zoning would be more appropriate." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Gardner addressed the Commission. She stated the applicant feels CO zoning was very limiting and some of the CO uses are not as appropriate as C-1 uses. She noted that the applicant is very concerned about neighborhood objection, and had authorized her to discuss some'�estricted usage." She was uncertain as to how this could be accomplished. Mr. Bowerman explained the proffer process to Ms. Gardner. Noting that it was apparently the applicant's preference not to consider CO, but rather to pursue C-1 with restricted usage, Mr. Bowerman suggested that the applicant request deferral to allow time to consider the issue and present a written proffer. Ms. Gardner asked for some assurance that this would not be a futile effort. Mr. Bowerman explained that he could not speculate on what the Commission's action would be on a different application. Ms. Gardner requested that the petition be deferred. She indicated she felt she understood the concerns and thought a compromise could be reached. Mr. Bowerman noted that he felt the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for Crozet was valid and he felt he "could look favorably on a request for commercial zoning in this area if it could be tailored in such way to be compatible with the surrounding area but recognizing that the plan calls for that." He stressed that he spoke for himself and not for the entire Commission. Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about the amount of negative citizen input and noted that his future action on this proposal would be influenced by how the proposal was received by the citizens. '"'June 13 1989 Page 3 It was determined the item could be rescheduled for June 27 and Mr. Keeler asked that a written proffer be in staff's hands by June 20. It was determined there was no public comment. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-5 for Ann Horner be deferred to June 27. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZMA-89-5 Ann Horner - Request to rezone 2,836 acres from R-2, Residential to C1, Commerciaq0the Property, described as Tax M 6A1, Section 1, Parcel 46A, is located south side of Jarman's Gap oad at the intersection with Rt. 1201. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from June 13, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. N Mr. Keeler explained that this request had been deferred previously in order for the applicant to submit a proffer. He noted the following \90 technical issues related to the proffer: "The applicant proffers that 'all uses by right in CO districts will be acceptable.' The County Zoning Ordinance is not a cumulative ordinance and, therefore, only CO uses expressly listed in the C-1 zone would be available." "The applicant has proffered deletion of some or all of: 22.2.1.b.17, 22.2.1.b.18 and 22.2.2.2. These are public uses and public utility types of uses which should not be deleted." June 27, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Keeler explained the applicant's proffer. The applicant was represented by Ms. Virginia Gardner. She offered little additional comment except to say that the applicant had attempted to delete those uses which might be objectionable to the neighborhood. Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a new piece of information which was included in their packet, i.e. a petition, the signers of which either (a) support Commercial Office zoning; or (b) do not support any commercial zoning at all. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Leonard Tosto, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He felt the re -zoning was premature. He was concerned about increased traffic and public opposition. He felt the property was not suitable for commercial development because of topographical considerations. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins stated that even though the Board has been under pressure to come up with commercial area in Crozet that is not in the watershed, he was still opposed to this property be designated as commercial because of its proximity to residential development. He noted that he did not know if he would be in support of commercial office either unless it was acceptable to the residents. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-5 for Ann Horner be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Rittenhouse seconded the motion. Discussion: There was a brief discussion about the existing zoning on surrounding properties. (Two other neighboring property owners expressed their opposition to the proposal.) Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission had recently denied a rezoning for a shopping center on 250W based upon the recommendation in the Plan that the commercial be in this area. He agreed, however that the C-1 rezoning originally requested by the applicant (prior to the proffer) was inappropriate. He stated he did not see much difference in C-1 with the applicant's proffer, and CO. He felt the use was not more intense though there was greater flexibility. He concluded he could support the applicant's request for the rezoning. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. 0 0 June 27, 1989 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman noted that he was sympathetic to Mr. Jenkins' and the public's point of view. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt "sensitivity of development" was an issue in this case. He explained: "I think the flavor, although some of the C-1 uses have been proffered out, is still one of a speculative rezoning." He noted no particular use has been proposed. He also pointed out that some of the uses which have not been proffered out would not be allowed in CO zoning. He noted that there exists a residential development with a proposal to rezone a portion of that for some unspecified commercial use. Mr. Jenkins indicated he could not support the proposal simply because there is pressure for commercial area in Crozet, given the citizen opposition. Mr. Stark stated that if the developer had propos d a specific use that would be beneficial to the neighborhood and had "sold"M the residents, then he would have been able to support the request. Mr. Michel stated he felt staff's recommendation for CO had been appropriate from the beginning. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood the concern, but he "had a problem using the Comprehensive Plan in ways that are suitable to me at the time and not trying to generally apply it in all cases, and this is a situation where we looked at the maps and we looked at the uses for Crozet and tried to understand the requirements the Crozet community would need and we put those in place in the Comprehensive Plan. On a case -by -case basis you can rezone anything but you don't look at it in terms of the context of the Plan. I certainly recognize that there is decided opposition to this rezoning in this particular location because of the residential, but it has to start somewhere." Mr. Michel stressed that staff had mach a very strong recommendation for CO, but the applicant chose to meet it 75% of the way but did not go all the way. .He felt staff's recommendation was correct because there is a difference between CO and C-1 and that difference is still evident even with the proffer. The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for denial. The motion passed (4:2) with Commissioners Bowerman and Wilkerson casting the dissenting votes.