HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 29, 2006 Work Session w Planning Commission
068
A Worksession ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Tuesday, August
29, 2006 at 12:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chairman Bill M. Ewing; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary
W. Dove; Gene E. Fisher; Philip A. Lemieux; and Barbara E. Van Osten.
OTHERS PRESENT
Planning Commission Chairman June Wilmot; Planning Commissioners Greg Kerr; George
1. Kriz; Gregory L. Unger; Chris Mohn; and Robert Morris; Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee members Diane Kearns; Jim Golladay; Marjorie Copenhaver; and Todd Shenk; David
Frank, Top of Virginia Building Association; and Wellington Jones, Frederick County Sanitation
Authority.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shickle called the worksession to order and turned the presentation over to Deputy
Planning Director Mike Ruddy.
Deputy Director Ruddy began by reviewing the agenda for the meeting. He stated the
Committee was looking to get an affirmation from the Board on the proposed land use policies.
With regard to public input, the Committee tried to include a variety of stakeholders such as: Top
of Virginia Building Association; Handley Library Board; and the Frederick County Public School
Board. The Committee held four public meetings, two in the Senseny Road area and two in the
Stephens City area. He then reviewed the statement of intent ofthis proposal, which would provide
for a new form of development in the urban development area. Deputy Director Ruddy went on to
say that each urban community center would be unique. He explained that the Committee is not
proposing to do away with existing areas by creating these new areas. Deputy Director Ruddy
reviewed the principles of new urbanism, which include mix and integration of a variety of uses; mix
and diversity of housing opportunities; increased density in an urban form; walkability, and
connectivity to name a few. He explained that the purpose ofthis concept was to create and design
appealing communities.
Deputy Director Ruddy then discussed the implementation of this concept. He suggested
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession on UDA Study on 08/29/06
069
establishing small land use plans that were specific to each urban center. The zoning and
subdivision regulations would evolve to facilitate what is being discussed; however, he felt the
existing R4 district was appropriate for the inclusion of these areas. He stated that ultimately the
County would address the ordinance requirements.
Committee Chairman and Planning Commissioner George Kriz stated that the Committee
looked at this proposal as a means of providing flexibility in various areas. He felt the R4 district
was a way to start the implementation. Hc went on to say that the Committee tried to incorporate
all ofthe thoughts from the various stakeholders. He concluded by citing the proposed Willow Run
project as a test case for this proposal.
Supervisor Dove stated this proposal was a great idea, but it would take a lot of work to
implement it. He went on to say that he did not think anyone knows exactly what needs to be done,
but the Board needs to send a message that they are flexible. Supervisor Dove explained that the
Board nceds to let the development community know what they havc in mind and seek their help
in creating design standards.
Supervisor Van Osten stated the topic was timely, it is a great beginning, and she was
supportive of the proposal.
Supervisor DeHaven stated that he supported the concept and agreed that it would take a lot
of work to come up with standards and design criteria. He felt the "devil was in the details", but the
Board needed to move forward with this concept.
Supervisor Lemieux asked how the County could bridge the gap between innovative design
and implementation.
Deputy Director Ruddy responded that there was a potential time lag. He felt this could be
addressed through either flexible zoning classification or floating zones. He went on to say that staff
could also work with specific property owners. He concluded by saying that this was part of an on-
going planning effort, but believed staff could move policy through the process within six months
to one year.
Supervisor Lemieux asked about the 60-40 split between rcsidential and commercial uses,
and whether this was a guideline or the norm.
Deputy Director Ruddy responded that it was a guideline to keep in mind, but it was not a
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession on UDA Study on 08/29/06
070
threshold. He stated the percentage is an overall goal for an entire community and not specific piece
of property.
Director Lawrence stated that the Committee was not changing the UDA, but was providing
for village centers. He went on to say that the implementation time line is drive by the support the
concept receives from the Board. He believed policy could be developcd in six months and an
ordinance in one year.
Supervisor Van Osten asked about the incentive to build these developments besides
increased density.
Deputy Director Ruddy responded that this would provide an opportunity for developers to
capture a new market of individuals and to address community housing needs.
Supervisor Van Osten asked about incentives for affordable housing.
Deputy Director Ruddy responded that affordable housing could be addressed in many ways.
He advised that the Committee concentrated on creating a community with different choices and a
need to get more, but in a different forum.
Director Lawrence stated this proposal shi fts the responsibility for providing these facilities
from the County to the developer.
Commissioner Mohn stated that new urbanism would also create a more expensIve
environment.
Supervisor Fisher stated there were some good things here. With regard to affordable
housing, he believed it should be housing for the lower wage earner who works in the commercial
areas in these proposed developments. He went on to say that he was not sure people want all of
the amenities. With regard to flexibility, the higher density buffers commercial from the residential
uses. He concluded by saying the County needs to keep the commercial and industrial integrity.
Chairman Shickle stated this new concept is actually a lot of concepts. He wanted to know
if this was something to be used in ccrtain parts of the county; something required to be used in
certain parts of the county; or something to be used, but ultimately required in part of the county.
Deputy Director Ruddy responded that the principles are applicable throughout the Urban
Development Area, but should be used in specific areas. He went on to say that there must be
sensitivity in how these uses interact. He concluded by saying they should be guiding principles.
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession on UDA Study on 08/29/06
071
Chairman Shickle stated if these concepts were required then he could not support it;
however, if the ordinance was amended to allow them as an option then he could support it. Hc
reiterated that he could not support a "must".
Deputy Director Ruddy stated the ordinance should provide the opportunity for this approach
to be used.
Director Lawrence felt the concept should be enabled in certain locations.
Chairman Shickle felt staff and the Board could move quickly on an enablement.
Deputy Director Ruddy stated that Albemarle County requires these concepts in designated
areas, but they initially enabled them and then went into critical areas and planned them in greater
detail.
Chairman Shickle thought clarity and consensus would be good.
Supervisor Van Osten thought certain areas should be identified and a development type
mandated.
Commissioner Morris advised that the Committee had a similar debate at its meetings, but
he felt it needed to be debated more.
David Frank, Top of Virginia Building Association, advised that if there was a
comprehensive plan amendment to require this type of development without the details being
worked out then projects could be denied. He felt the R4 district was beginning to be utilized, but
people are beginning to opt out of this option due to the uncertainties around it.
Supervisor DeHaven stated that we all agree that the concept looks good and he proposed
the Board move forward with enabling the concept. He went on to say that he had problem requiring
this type of development without in depth discussion. He concluded by saying that he was not sure
the Board was ready to require it anywhere.
Commissioner Morris stated that if there is nothing specific in place then negotiation
becomes the order ofthe day.
Chairman Shickle polled the Board regarding their feelings about the proposal.
Supervisor Lemieux stated that he was hung up on the "may versus must" aspect.
Supervisor Fisher was of the some position.
Supervisor Dove stated that he thought it was a great idea, but he did not want to make it
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession on VDA Study on 08129/06
072
mandatory.
Vice-Chairman Ewing stated that he liked the concept, but he would like more information.
Supervisor Van Osten supported the concept and supported making it mandatory in certain
areas.
Supervisor DeHaven supported the implementation as a new option. He was willing to
discuss specific areas of application and making it a requirement.
Commission Chairman Wilmot stated that there needed to be some concurrence that
incentive is not a bad word.
Chairman Shickle felt that incentives should be on the table.
Commissioner Kriz stated that Committee would go back and discuss it more. After their
meeting, they would send something back to the Board for its information.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:35 P.M.
,
\2~iLQ ~Q 0
Richard C. Shickle
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
J
Minutes Prepared By:
/lOti ( o-tl)
J';; E. -fib
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 32
Board of Supervisors Worksession ou UDA Study on 08/29/06