December 6 2013 Minutes of Work Session with Planning Com & Bus Friendly Recom149
A work session of Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Friday,
December 6, 2013, at 11:30 A.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Roam, 107 North Kent
Street, Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess;
Gary A. Lofton; and Robert W. Wells.
ABSENT
Christopher E. Collins (Arrived at 11:55 A.M.).
OTHERS PRESENT
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County
Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Planning
Directox; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; Michael Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director;
Patrick Barker, Executive Director of the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development
Commission; and Planning Commission members: June Wilmot, H. Paige Manuel, Gary Oates,
Charles Triplett, Charles Dunlap, J. Stanley Crockett, Lawrence Ambrogi, Rhodes Marston,
Kevin Kenny, and Roger Thomas.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Shickle called the work session to order.
PLANNING ITEMS
URBAN CENTER DESIGN CABINET REPORT & TRADITIONAL
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN ORDINANCE
Deputy Planning Director Michael Ruddy provided a brief overview of the Urban Center
Design Cabinet. He noted the group looked at four areas in the county identified as urban
centers: Crosspointe, Greenwood Road, Parkins Mill, and Sherando Town Centre. The cabinet
was based on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say this report was not intended to
be part of the Comprehensive Plan, but rather a standalone resource /document. He advised the
design of these urban centers is yet to be determined. He noted the report lists what is important
to make the urban centers work. Those factors include: entertainment, employment, residential,
transportation, and public services. He went on to explain that the uses in the urban centers are
higher intensity than seen elsewhere in the county.
Minute Book Number 39
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission &Staff on 12/46/13
Re: Urban Center Design — Traditional Neighborhood Design Ordinance
and Also Discussion of Business Friendly Committee Recommendations
150
Deputy Director Ruddy advised staff and the Planning Commission sought additional
input through a development roundtable. He explained part of this development consult effort
looked at the Design Center Cabinet report and reviewed the Traditional Neighborhood Design
ordinance,
Senior Planner Candice Perkins briefly reviewed the proposed Traditional Neighborhood
Design ordinance. She noted this proposal would allow far the development of compatible
mixed uses. It would require a minimum of 20 acres, but contiguous properties could be added.
Planning Director Eric Lawrence. and Planning Commission Chairman June Wilmot
reviewed the membership of the development consult and the group's findings.
Director Lawrence stated the group felt the policy and the ordinance made sense. The
group noted this was along -term project with this type of development occurring over the next
30 to 50 years. He went on to say if this ordinance is not on the books then the development
community would not consider or think about it. He concluded by saying staff was seeking
Board feedback on this proposed ordinance and whether or not it was ready for public hearing.
Supervisor Lofton expressed concern about the need to put limits an the number of units
per acre.
Director Lawrence responded that he believed the ordinance provided flexibility for the
developer.
Chairman Shickle stated he would like to see more work done on "why we need this ".
He went an to say this information would help us ascertain at a later date if we were effective.
He concluded by saying he was not sure everyone agreed an the why.
Director Lawrence advised the development consult felt the "why" was important and
that a scale of some sort would work in Frederick County.
Supervisor Fisher advised he had issues with this proposal at the Planning Commission
retreat and he had not gotten past them. He expressed concern about the density and intensity of
this proposal. He wanted to know who drives the marketability of this type of project. He
concluded by saying he was not ready for it to go anywhere yet.
Planning Commissioner Roger Thomas stated that both comments lean to the direction he
is looking. He asked how much flexibility should the county provide fox people coming into the
co�.uity? He noted it was a struggle being everything to everybody or creating a niche. 1-le
Minute Book Number 39
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission &Staff on 12/06/13
lte: Urban Center Design — Traditional Neighborhood Design prdinance
and Also Discussion of Business Friendly Committee Recommendations
i J I'
concluded by saying the advantage of the ordinance was it gave more control over how
development was to occur.
Director Lawrence noted staff had rraet with two teams interested in this type of
development and he would prefer to have an ordinance that was cut and dry versus having to
interpret proffers.
Planning Commissioner Charles Dunlap noted that he had seen firsthand how poor policy
had led to a lot of bad stuff. The ordinance does provide a starting point to prevent some of the
stuff in northern Virginia.
Director Lawrence advised the county has to plan for the future and 30 years seem to be a
good horizon.
Supervisor Hess asked if the county should be considering existing residential classes,
particularly young people.
Supervisor Wells stated he liked the concept, but he grew up in Arlington and moved
away in order to get away from the congestion.
Planning Commissioner Oates stated, in response to the question of why, this proposal
implements the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say if the Board does not want this type of
development then they need to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
BUSINESS FRIENDLY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. reviewed the history of this series of
recommendations from the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizens'
Committee. The phase I recommendations were:
Public Information Officer;
Signage Along Major Routes Entering Frederick County;
Establishment of an Economic Development Authority;
Review and Evaluation of the Master Development Plan Process;
Simplification of the Landscape Ordinance; and
Reduction in Proffer Requirements
At this meeting, discussions would focus on three of those recommendations:
1 }The Public information Officer
2) Establishment of an EDA, and
3} Reduction in Proffer Requirements.
items.
The goal is for the Board to reach a consensus on how to proceed with_ those respective
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
Minute Book Number 39
Board of Supervisors Wark Session with Planning Commission & Staff on 12/06/13
Re: Urban Center Design — 'traditional Neighborhood Design Ordinance
and Also Discussion of Business Friendly Committee Recommendations
152
Administrator Riley advised the dominant theme coming from the various business
subcommittees was public outreach and promotion of Frederick County. One of the
recommendations pertaining to this theme was the need to create a public information officer
position. This recommendation was forwarded to the Human Resources Committee far further
evaluation. It is envisioned this position would play a key role in enhancing the County's
professional image as a first rate, livable, business friendly community by promoting our
successes and providing a central point of contact for Frederick County. The HR Committee
recommended creation of this position, which would make it eligible for funding consideration
as part of the FY 2015 budget process. .
Supervisor Fisher suggested looking at efficiencies of combining functions of the
Frederick County Public Schools PIO and Frederick County Government.
Administrator Riley advised staff had looked internally at the efficiencies of combining
functions since a number of people within the organization were doing different aspects of the
PIO function; however, they had not looked across the schools and government.
The Board consensus was to authorize the creation of the position. Supervisor Lofton did
not support creating the position at this time.
ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Administrator Riley reviewed the committee's recommendation that the Board change
the current Industrial Development Authority to an Economic Development Authority. This
recommendation was for<�varded to the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development
Commission for further study. The EDC established a working group comprised of Frederick
County residents and business owners. This working group reviewed the various elements of
economic development authorities including the pros and cons of such a change.
The working group ultimately recommended the conversion of the existing IDA to an
EDA. The EDA would be funded per the County's current funding of the EDC, to include
staffing.
The make -up of the new EDA board could consist of four current EDC board members,
three members of the current IDA, and one Board of Supervisors' liaison. The members would
serve staggered terms, similar to the current IDA board.
It was recommended this new body hold annual meetings, at a minimum, wish the Board
of Supervisors to confirm strategy alignment regarding economic development goals,
Minute Book Number 34
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission &Staff on 12/06/13
Re: Urban Center Design — Traditional Neighborhood Design Ordinance
and Also Discussion of Business Friendly Committee Recommendations
�5
aggressiveness {e.g. land acquisition, bond issuance, etc. }, and continuance of existing business
function.
It was felt this option most clearly mirrored the current EDC structure, which has
performed well and would provide a mostly seamless transition. This structure would provide
one point of contact for new businesses and business expansions. It would also provide the
County with a vehicle to prime business development properties with increased speed and fewer
obstacles. Finally, this model would provide accountability not just in the near term, but going
forward.
At the Board's November 13, 2013 meeting, the Board authorized staff to proceed with
the creation of an EDA with an effective date of July 1, 2014. In order to make that happen, the
following needs to occur:
1 } The Board must conduct a public hearing to approve the ordinance changing the name
of the INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK, VIRGINIA to the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA. It is anticipated this hearing and
ordinance adoption will take place at the Board's January 8, 2014 meeting. A copy was
included in your agenda packet.
2) Staff has met with members of our state delegation regarding the need for special
legislation to allow a Board of Supervisors' member to be appointed as a voting member
of the EDA. It is anticipated this legislation will be presented during the upcoming
General Assembly Session.
3} A plan must be developed to transition the existing EDC staff to EDA staff.
We have checked with IDA counsel and it has been determined that the name change
from Industrial Development Authority to Economic Development Authority would not affect
the outstanding bond financings.
Staff is seeking Board direction regarding the make -up of the EDA Board. Would you
prefer to:
1 } to keep the existing IDA members in place and then make any new appointments as
those terms come due?
2} to follow the working groups recommendation of four current EDC board members and
three current IDA members?
3} the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors appoints new members to the new EDA
board?
Supervisors Wells, Fisher, and Collins favored option 2, consisting of four current EDC
members and three current IDA members.
Minute Book Number 39
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Blanning Comnnission & Staff on 1ZIOGII3
Re: Urban Center Design — Traditional Neighborhood Design Ordinance
and Also Discussion of Basiness f+'riendly Committee Recommendations
X54
Supervisor Hess stated his preference to have a voting board of supervisors'
representative starting out on the new EDA,
Supervisor Lofton supported Supervisor Hess's position.
After some discussion, the Board's consensus was for the make -up of the new EDA to
consist of three members each from the IDA and EDC and one member of the Board of
Supervisors.
It is important to note the EDC has a deadline of December 20, 2013 to submit a funding
request to the City of Winchester for consideration as part of the FY 2015 budget process. Based
on discussions at the Joint Finance Committee and the respective reports submitted to the Board
the City has categorized the EDC as an outside agency for purposes of funding. EDC staff is
seeking direction from the Board regarding whether or not to submit a funding request far FY
2015.
Chairman Shickle stated, unless the city can articulate what services the new EDA can do
for them, he would. suggest no funding request be submitted. He went on to say if the new EDA
would provide services to the city then those services must be identified and a cost estimate
provided. He concluded by saying he would like to see the proper documentation drafted and
send to the city for consideration to dissolve the EDC.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL — TRANSPORTATION CREDITS
Administrator Riley reviewed the final item, which was the Business Friendly
Committee's recommendation that tl�e Development Impact Model be re- evaluated to take into
account current economic conditions. He noted the current model projects capital facility
impacts resulting from new residential development. While reviewing the model, it was noted
by members of the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee that a reduction in proffer
expectations would not equate to a reduction in the capital impact to the County. These costs of
new residential development must be covered by either the developer /liomebuilder/homeowner
or they could be distributed countywide through contributions from all taxpayers. Members of
the DIM -OC commented that current residents should not be expected to bear the costs
associated with new growth through increased real estate taxes. It has also been the position of
this board, in the past, that development needs to pay its way and the current residents should not
be expected to bear this cost through higher taxes.
Minute Book 1Vumber 39
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission & Staff an 121Q6/13
Re: Urban Center Design — Traditional Neighborhood Desigu Ordinance
and Also Discussion of Business Friendly Committee Recommendations
��
The Development Impact Model Oversight Committee felt that offering a credit for
proffered transportation .improvements, above what is typically expected to address
transportation mitigation, would be appropriate. This practice is occurring in other localities and
has occurred locally on some of the larger, more heavily transportation proffered projects. It was
fell that projects offering extensive road rights -of way such as for planned Route 37 should
receive credits to mitigate their projected residential impacts.
The DIM -OC discussed haw the value of transportation credits would be derived. It was
determined the value would be developed thxough discussions with the applicant, VDOT, and the
County's transportation planner.
The DIM -OC ultimately recommended approval of a policy modification to enable the
credit for transportation.
Supervisor Fisher stated he did not think this credit would apply to an old rezoning, but
would apply only to new rezanings.
Planning Commissioner Roger Thomas stated he thought the. transportation credit was a
goad thing, but if a developer wished to have it apply to a previously approved rezoning then
they should be required to use the current proffer rrtodel.
Chairman Shickle stated he was ready to move forward with allowing transportation
credits for new rezonings.
After further discussion, the Board's consensus was to allow transportation credits.
Chairman Shickle asked staff to provide information on the % of proffers collected,
which were spent for capital items, an an annual basis. He also asked the DIM -OC to review the
model to see if there are any components that prohibit growth. He concluded by saying the
committee should continue to review the model.
There being no further business, the work session adjourned at 1:10 P.M.
}
Richard G Shickle .� R. Riley, Jr.
Chairman, Board of Supervisors Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By: �. �,.�
Jay E Ti bs
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Sook Number 39
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission & Staff on 12 /06/13
Re: iJrban Center Design — Traditional Neighborhood Design Ordinance
and Also Discussion of Business Friendly Committee Recommendations