Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 04 2007 Work Session429 A Worksession of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, June 4, 2007, at 12:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice-Chairman Gene E. Fisher; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gary - W. Dove; Bill M. Ewing; Philip A. Lemieux; and Barbara E. Van Osten. OTHERS PRESENT John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Director of Planning and Development; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; and Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director of Planning and Development. Chairman Shickle called the Worksession to order. Senior Planner Eddy reviewed the agenda. UDA BUSINESS OVERLAY DISTRICT Senior Planner Eddy began by discussing the UDA Business Overlay District. She explained this was the first ordinance to implement the elements of the UDA Study. This proposal had been through the UDA Working Group and the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee. The ordinance would apply to sites containing less than 20 acres within the B 1 and B2 zoning districts. A rezoning would be required in order to get this overlay designation. The proposed ordinance would enable a neo-traditional layout and design and would allow residential units on the second and third floors; however, they would not be required. This proposal would not be taking anything away, but would be adding an option for residential development. The overlay would only be allowed in neighborhood villages and urban centers. Supervisor DeHaven stated he would be inclined to consider anything in the Urban Development Area and/or Sewer and Water Service Area in lieu of the designated centers. Supervisor Lemieux agreed. Supervisor Van Osten felt the same as Supervisor DeHaven with regard to the UDA and SWSA; however, she felt the Board should commit to the identified sites and include them as well. Senior Planner Eddy reviewed the characteristics of this district, which include: Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning on 06/04/07 (Discussion on UDA and Multi-Family Housing) 430 - Shallow setbacks; - Wide sidewalks; - Windows and entrances along sidewalks; - Parking in the rear. The overlay district would also contain different forms of signage (e.g. awning signs and projecting signs). The amount of signage a business would be permitted to have would be based on the linear feet of the building. She went on to discuss the difficulties staff, the working group, and the D.R.R.S. had with regard to the need to incentivize this type of development (e.g. no recreational units, waivers from master development plan process, and proffers). Supervisor Van Osten stated she would. like to encourage office uses above the retail uses. Supervisor Dove stated he was inclined to leave the proffers in, but would agree with no recreational units and waivers from the master development plan. Supervisor Van Osten wanted to see pocket parks encouraged where appropriate. Chairman Shickle wondered why there was a need to incentivize this type of development. Supervisor Dove stated the market would dictate if these developments would be built. Supervisor DeHaven stated he was looking at the added density and would prefer to see the full residential proffer. He went on to say this might encourage commercial office. Chairman Shickle agreed because some off-site demands would be higher. Supervisor Van Osten echoed Supervisor DeHaven's comments. Chairman Shickle asked about the rezoning aspect and if there would be a reconsideration of where we want to see B1 and B2 zoning. Senior Planner Eddy stated the Board might see both. One example could be RA zoned property changed to B1 or B2 overlay. Another example could be to rezone B1 or B2 property to include the overlay district. Supervisor DeHaven stated that he did not think the existing community would react positively to three or four-story buildings. Director Lawrence advised the overlay could be tailored to meet the needs of the Board. Chairman Shickle stated that it seemed okay to allow this type of development in certain settings; however, he struggled with where that would be. He went on to say that he did not want Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning on 06/04/07 (Discussion on UDA and Multi-Family Housing) 431 to encourage it, but he did not want to deny someone the opportunity. Supervisor Van Osten favored allowing this in the UDA and SWSA; however, she believed the Board was "getting the cart before the horse" unless there was a commitment to the proposed sites. Supervisor DeHaven favored allowing them in the Sewer and Water Service Area at a minimum. He went onto say that he did not have great concern based on where the lines are today. He expressed slight concern that this could encourage high density residential development with vacant commercial on the first floor. He asked Senior Planner Eddy if the County would require overall site plans. Senior Planner Eddy responded yes. The Board directed staff to write up the changes and re-circulate them to Board members. AGE-RESTRICTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING Senior Planner Eddy briefly reviewed proposed regulations regarding age-restricted multifamily housing. She stated this use would be by-right in the RP (Residential Performance) District within proffered age-restricted developments. The regulations would allow greater density and taller structures. She then reviewed the changes previously recommended by the Board of Supervisors, which included: - No restrictions on the number of habitable floors; - 1.5 parking spaces per unit; - Increased side and rear yard setback. Two feet for each linear foot over 35 feet. - Landscape screen with a berm. Chairman Shickle stated he would like to have input from an architect so he could see the footprint for this type of structure. Administrator Riley asked staff to prepare a mock up of this type of structure for the Board. Chairman Shickle stated such a structure should have at least 40 units. He went on to say there was sensitivity to people being impacted. Supervisor DeHaven was supportive of what was proposed. Supervisor Ewing stated visuals would be helpful. Chairman Shickle asked if staff found similar ordinances in other jurisdictions. Minute Book Number 32 Board or Supervisors Worksession with Planning on 06/04/07 (Discussion on UDA and Multi-Family IIousing) 432 Senior Planner Eddy responded yes, but there was wide variation among them. Supervisor Van Osten stated she could live with 1.5 parking spaces per 3 bedrooms, but if the unit had more than three bedrooms then it needed to have two spaces. Supervisor Ewing asked if there were any provisions in this ordinance that might require a waiver. SIC TO NAICS Senior Planner Eddy stated the SIC code is obsolete and there were some areas left open to interpretation. The NAICS, on the other hand, was more up-to-date and precise and required little interpretation. The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee began working on converting the codes within the B1 District from SIC to NAICS. Supervisor Dove asked what benefit would be derived from the change because he could not see the use of SIC versus NAICS keeping businesses from locating in Frederick County. Administrator Riley suggested having the D.R.R.S. go through the B1 conversion process and let the Board mediate any discrepancies which might arise. Supervisor DeHaven stated the SIC code has always been an issue and he would like to see the working group interject their thoughts on where uses should go. Supervisor Van Osten agreed with Supervisor DeHaven. Director Lawrence stated the group would work on the B 1 conversion and report back to the Board. SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE Senior Planner Eddy reported the D.R.R.S. was working on updating the sign ordinance. They were recommending a reduction in the size, height, and number of freestanding signs. Staff consulted with the Chamber of Commerce and the Industrial Parks Association and received much negative feedback. She concluded by saying the D.R.R.S. would discuss this at its June 28"'meeting and the interested groups have been invited to attend. Supervisor Fisher stated that he would like to see the County do something about the billboards in the rural areas. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:25 P.M. Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning on 06/04/07 (Discussion on UDA and Multi-Family Housing) 43 Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors /~ n R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: Jay )J Ti s Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning on 06/04/07 (Discussion on UDA and Multi-Family Housing)