Loading...
August 17 2016 Work Session with Planning Com Minutesi 04(; A joint work session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman; Gene E. Fisher, Vice - Chairman; Blaine P. Dunn; Robert A. Hess; Gary A. Lofton; Judith McCann - Slaughter; and Robert W. Wells. OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Commissioners June M. Wilmot; Gary R. Oates; H. Paige Manuel; Greg L. Unger; J. Rhodes Marston; Charles F. Dunlap; Kevin Kenney; Charles E. Triplett; Christopher M. Mohn; and Robert S. Molden; Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Michael T. Ruddy, Planning Director; Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Assistant Planning Director Transportation; Mark A. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called ille work session to order. Planning Director Michael Ruddy reviewed the agenda. • Review of the 2035 Draft Comprehensive Plan o Appendix T, II, Kernstown Area Plan • 2016 CPPA Submissions • Other Discussions o Proffers, Indoor Recreation in the M1 a Other REVIEW OF THE 2035 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Assistant Planning Director Candice B. Perkins reported the three -phase approach and schedule for the 5 -year review and update of the 2030 Comprehensive Flan was initiated in the summer of 2015. • Phase I (Completed September 2015) —CPPC review and update of Appendix II; Background Analyses and Supporting Studies. • Phase II (Completed March 2016) —CPPC and the Blue Ribbon Group reviewed and updated key section of the Plan. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/17/16 County of Frederick, Virginia 041 • Phase III (April/May /June 2016) — Planning Commission Review of 2035 Update (PC Retreat Apri120. 2016), followed by Board of Supervisors direction to move forward with additional public outreach. (Four public outreach and community meetings held throughout the summer 2016). Assistant Director Perkins noted during Phase III, staff conducted four community meetings and coordinated aweb -based approach using the resources of the Public Information Officer. These meetings solicited input from the public on the plan in general, key sections of the plan, any significant issues and adjustments that have been identified to date by the blue ribbon panels, and comments from the Board of Supervisors. Assistant Director Perkins presented a summary of the changes made during this 5 -year update: • Update of alI maps, facts and figures (population, demographic, land use analysis) (Appendix II) to reflect current conditions • Minor editorial changes to ensure consistency of language used and terminology across all Chapters • Inclusion of additional trends, Focus for the Future, and policies /implementation for each chapter • Addition of specific information regarding future planning for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) as it pertains to the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA), and the Frederick County Public School facilities Expanded text on future business /economic development opportunities • Transportation updates to the text and the interstate, primary, and secondary roadway plans and policies • Minor changes to the Kernstown Area Plan (Appendix I) Assistant Director Perkins then provided an overview of what had transpired with the Kernstown Area Plan: • Discussed by the Board of Supervisors on September 2015. It was not sent to public hearing as it was expressed that additional work was needed. • Revised the text to address comments received by the Board of Supervisors. • Staff is seeking to move this update forward with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan update. Director Ruddy noted the original was attached to everyone's paperwork and the options were to leave as is or to make changes. Assistant Director Perkins reported staff was seeking input and direction on the following: • Draft 2035 Comprehensive Plan update; Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/17/76 County of Frederick, Virginia 042 • Draft Kernstown Area Plan (modified to address concerns expressed by the Board of Supervisors) to include incorporation of the Kernstown Area Plan in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan update; and • Authorization to take these updates to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for discussion and public hearing over the next several months, Chairman DeHaven commented folks have worked very hard on this and he would ask everyone to pause and re- review the documents and comment back to staff within the next 30 days. Supervisor Hess added he did not feel the plan exactly fit one individual, and that was acceptable. He stated he felt this was a guideline and items could be changed. He echoed that a lot of hard work had been put forth and overall a terrific product. Chairman DeHaven highlighted this was a very important document from which decisions were reassured. 2016 CPPA SUBMISSIONS CPPA #01 -16, Leonard Property: StafF reported this was a request to expand the boundary of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include 43.77 acres of land. The properties are located on the eastern side of White Oak Road (Route 636) in the Shawnee Magisterial District and are currently zoned RA (Ruxal Areas) District. The Southern Frederick Land Use PIan designates these parcels for future mixed use commercial /office and industrial uses. Staff presented an aerial location map of the properties and shared comments provided by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). FCSA currently has residential service to the west of the site and industrial service to the east. The property owner will need to study the existing sewer conveyance facilities from the site to Parkins Mill WWTP (Waste Water Treatment Plant) to ascertain if capacity exists to serve the proposed project. It is anticipated the property owner will need to upgrade sewer pump stations and upsize lines to accommodate additional development and FCSA supported further study of the site. CPPA #02 -16 Russell and Smith Pro erties: Staff reported this was a request to expand the boundaries of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) to include eight parcels that tota1207.7 acres. The properties are adjacent to Justus Drive, Rosa Lane, and Laurelwood Drive in the immediate proximity to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The properties are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan designates these parcels with future Urban Center and Residential uses. Staff presented an aerial location map of the properties as well as a land use map overlay and shared comments provided by FCSA. It was noted the sewer Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/17/16 County of Frederick, Virginia i 04� serving the area has limited capacity today and therefore insufficient capacity to serve the additional development from the Russell and Smith properties. FCSA is working to remedy the existing sewer limitations by implementing a sewer force main/gravity relocation improvement project, which ultimately will redirect effluent from the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility (OWRF) to the Parkins Mill WWTP. It would be appropriate for the improvement program to account for the additional flows associated with any pofiential development of the Russell and Smith properties, and for the properties to participate in funding the sewer improvement project. Staff shared if the SWSA is adjusted, FCSA would support expansion of the SWSA boundary to coincide with the planned Route 37 right -of- -way. This right- of=way boundary would create a drainage basin that could maximize the benefit of gravity sewer. Staff concluded by saying, without sewer capacity being captured in the improvement project, the Russell and Smith properties might find that there is no sewer capacity available for their use and FCSA supports further study of the site. CPPA #03 -16, Woods Mill Road Properties: Staff reported this was a request to modify the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan from Historic/DSA to low density residential and to expand the UDA and SWSA around the 316.78 acre site. The properties are located along Woods Mill Road {Route 661) and are adjacent to the UDA and SWSA boundaries that surround the Red Bud Run Subdivision located along Berryville Pike (Route 7) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The properties are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. Staff presented a location map with overlay of the Northeast Land Use Plan. Staff share the comments provide by FCSA. The Authority currently does not have facilities readily available to service the development; however, they have an easement and sewer force main along the eastern property line of some of the properties. This is the interceptor force main linking the Stephenson Regional Pump Station to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility (OWFR). It was noted this sewer interceptor is not available for use by the subject properties. Staff explained existing water and sewer in the Red Bud Run subdivision south of the properties was not designed nor sized appropriately for extension into the subject properties. Staff noted these properties would incur significant investment in both water and sewer infrastructure to achieve adequate water pressures and sewer flow capacities. FCSA does not support further study of the site without consideration of a much larger study area that could collectively contribute to infrastructure improvements to convey the study area sewage directly to the OWRF. Minute Book Number A2 Board of Supervisors Work Session with i?►anning Commission on 0$/17/16 County of Rrederick, Virginia 044 CPPA #04 -16. Fruit Hill Orchard (Interstate Orchard): Staff reported this was a request to expand the boundary of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include 304.7 acres; currently 106.8 acres of the site is within the SWSA. The properties are located north and south of Rest Church Road (Route 669) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan designates these parcels for mixed use industriaUoffice and commercial land uses. Staff shared the comments provided by FCSA. FCSA has facilities in the vicinity, but water supply and sewer capacity in the area are limited. Staff explained the existing Route 11 North sewer system has available capacity reserved by property owners who funded the sewer infrastructure extension to the Rest Church Road area over a decade ago, but the system does not currently have excess capacity available for additional land areas such as the subject properties. Preliminary analysis suggests a new wastewater treatment plant or force main to the OWRF would be needed prior to additional development opportunities being accommodated. Staff concluded by saying FCSA does not support further study of the site without consideration of a much larger study area that could collectively contribute to infrastructure improvements to convey the study area sewage directly to the OWRF or to a new wastewater treatment plant. Comments and Discussion on Com rehensive Polic Plan Amendments Commissioner Unger inquired how much water and sewer would be used if the Leonard Property were to be built out as planned. Mr. Tim Stowe representing the Leonard Property noted. they have not computed any flows at this time. again. Supervisor McCann - Slaughter requested to view the FCSA comments for each CPPA Director Ruddy reported the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee suggested further study of the Leonard Property request. He noted any questions that arise could certainly be bxought forward to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Wilmot noted a couple of the CPPA requests being presented met the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Mohn reported, from a committee perspective, most of the CPPAs are proposing boundary adjustments in places that are already designated with some type of planned land use so the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee felt they should spend some time looking at the proposals to ensure there were no red flags from an infrastructure perspective. He Minute Book Number 42 Board otSupervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/]7/16 County of Frederick, Virginia 04�. noted that was the point of reaching out to FCSA prior to the work session to gather their feedback. Supervisor Dunn inquired about the impact on water for all four properties presented. Commissioner Oates responded that all four properties would have a significant impact. He continued by saying FCSA looked to see if there were adequate facilities in the area to service the properties. Two of the properties have access to service facilities and two do not. He went on to say the two that did not have facilities would require massive upgrades to the system. Commissioner Oates elaborated that anytime a SWSA extension is looked at they have to be cognizant of FCSA's work and planning efforts. Commissioner Mohn noted to some degree the idea moving forward would be to dig deeper into these applications, still recognizing there is the Comprehensive Plan effort. He commented there would be some generality to what the numbers are up to this point. Supervisor Dunn inquired if this becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan, at that point is there a water requirement for what occurs there. Commissioner Oates responded the land owner would have to go through the rezoning process and it would be subject to availability. If FCSA cannot serve the area then the land owner needs to figure out if revisions could be made to the property andlor look for additional water sources. Director Ruddy noted the rezoning process would assist in determining the water requirement. Supervisor McCann - Slaughter inquired with regard to the current proffer legislation particularly what obligation does the developer have to provide the infrastructure to accommodate the water and sewer and would the County be able to ask the developer for that or would the County be compromised by the new legislation in what we can ask of a developer? Commissioner Oates noted FCSA is a separate entity from the County and they are a utility. If a property is being rezoned for residential use and the infrastructure does not have capacity in that area, then it cannot be served by FCSA. The developer would need to build the needed infrastructure to accommodate their project. Supervisor Dunn asked if the developer would be responsible for the total cost. Commissioner Oates responded it would depend on whether the improvements would benefit the region or if they were specific to that property. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08!17/16 County or Frederick, Virginia 1 In regards to the Woods Mill Road properties Supervisor Dunn asked what historical items would be affected and how much would be disturbed. Director Ruddy reported the designation of a developmentally sensitive area in the Northeast land Use Plan covers the area north of Route 7 in the Red Bud Run vicinity. The sensitive area has a variety of elements to consider and would be determined with future study. Supervisor Dunn inquired if any future use would be addressed on an individual basis. Director Ruddy noted that was correct. Supervisor Hess asked if a developer could pay the cost of a line .serving just one property upfront and then recover the cost if other properties are developed and hook to the line. FCSA Executive Director Eric Lawrence stated that was correct. He went on to say that in the past FCSA has entered into agreements with developers so everyone benefits. Commissioner Oates commented that he felt it would be beneficial to have Assistant Planning Director Transportation -John Bishop provided a transportation overview of each of the CPPAs. Supervisor Fisher stated he felt the timing on the Leonard Property might be okay with further study; however he has no interest in the other three and felt they were inappropriate timing wise. NEW PROFFER LEGISLATION Director Ruddy provided a brief overview of the new proffer legislation. He noted the following: • Variety of things to consider with the new legislation and it is quite detailed. • The approach that has been taken by staff and County counsel is to pay close attention to how the legislation was being addressed then start the discussion of what would be appropriate for Frederick County. • Senate Bill 549 only applies to residential rezonings and residential components of mixed use projects. This new legislation does not apply to commercial and industrial projects. • Applies to rezoning applications that were submitted after July 1, 2016.. • Prohibits the County from requesting or accepting any "unreasonable" proffer and also prohibits localities from denying any rezoning request where denial is based in whole or in part on an applicant's failure to submit an unreasonable proffer. • Need to put in place tools to fairly evaluate and model rezoning requests and the impacts to the County. • There is a legal side to the new legislation. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/17/16 County of Frederick, Virginia 0 4 `rj� • This legislation very specifically says that "an impact should be specifically attributable to the proposed use "; however, specifically attributable is not clearly defined. • Many avenues for an applicant to challenge a denied residential rezoning. • New legislation is very specific in regards to public uses such as fire and rescue and parks and recreation. • Foresee the nee$ to meet with Rod Williams, County Attorney to review and address questions and make some adjustments to how we use the County's DIM (Development Impact Model). • Recognition that discussions held with applicants for rezoning requests should be thoroughly thought out. • The code is very specific on what we can accept proffers for and on the other hand it is very vague when defining what is an unreasonable proffer. • Caution is to be used. • Goal is to find a solution enabling good projects that implement our • Comprehensive Plan. • Provide additional guidance to Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as this process continues. County Attorney Rod Williams provided additional highlights of the new proffer legislation: • Reiterated this only applies to residential and residential/mixed use rezonings. • Proffers must continue to be voluntary. • Proffers only apply to: schools, parks, public safety, and transportation facilities, each which presents some challenges. • Water and sewer not among the limitations of this new legislation. • Becomes an issue for FCSA —note: the SWSA is an authorization not a mandate. • Development Impact Model — in the long term will have to be changed. • There was a big rush to get applications in by July 1, 2016, however not so in Frederick County. • Need to find ways to comply with new legislation so we have small tweaks down the road. • Communications and how to discuss affected rezonings: o Treat as a listening session. o Be non - committal. o Proceed with some risk. o Take any suggestions that are given to Planning Staff rather than responding. Minute Book Number 42 Board of Snpervisors Work Session with PEanning Commission on 08/17/16 County of Frederick, Virginia 1 o Caution in how you respond, do so with great care. o Encourage applicants to show us what they have that is specifically attributable rather than us having to dig for it. Director Ruddy felt that everyone needed to have an understanding from the beginning. This item will be brought back to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with further action needed. Commissioner Oates stated .his initial reaction was the General Assembly passed something without knowing what the consequences would be. He was concerned that bad projects would show up and the County's hands would be all but tied. Supervisor Fisher noted he would like more information on the bill such as who sponsored it, where it came from, and who lobbied for it. Supervisor Dunn shared his concerns, legislators who passed this need to re -work it and maybe change items or possibly postpone. Commissioner Oates noted this could not be postponed as it is already in effect. Supervisor Dunn that commented the new legislative session begins in January and they should start collecting amendments This fall. Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney suggested possible action to consider sooner than later would be to update the DIM (Development Impact Model) or have the Board of Supervisors temporarily shelve the model. Chairman DeHaven commented that he was interested to see what other localities were doing with their DIMS. Director Ruddy noted he had observed a locality and attended a summer conference a model was used to address now and future. Chairman DeHaven concluded by saying we need to put some thought into what we can do to protect the County. EVALUATE RECREATIONAL USES IN Ml Director Ruddy presented an overview on the request to evaluate recreational uses in the M1 District. He explained in 2009 this was brought to the Board of Supervisors but it was not moved forward at that time. From the Planning Department aspect there are a couple cases that have been long standing cases, that deal with this very same issue, which have gone through the Minute Book Number 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/17!16 County or Frederick, Virginia 04� BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals), and it has been very clear that one cannot do commercial indoor recreational uses in the industrial district. Supervisor Dunn asked if he was talking specifically about a commercial gym. Assistant Director Ferkins replied there were a number of items that fell under commercial indoor recreation such as gymnastics, practice facilities, and a wide variety of uses. Commissioner Oates replied back in 2008/2009 the economy had turned and there were a lot of empty warehouses. A lot of those owners were trying to figure out how to make money and moved types of uses into the warehouses. The big challenge in the M1 District was parking for an pzdoor recreational use. He noted there was a very big cost associated with that type of use. Commissioner Mohn inquired if we were to allow indoor recreation in the M1 it would be subject to all the other requirements and ordinances for that use. Director Ruddy noted that was correct. Commissioner Mohn commented if they can meet all the requirements he does not see a big issue with that particular use. Tt comes down to upgrading the facility and if the use can complement the surrounding area that would be okay. Supervisor Fisher explained, in 2009, the intent was not to lose industrial sites for other types of uses but if there was some way to make this an accessory or a CUP where it could be kept relatively rational in size. He would like to find a way to control it so we do not lose big blocks of industrial land. Supervisor McCann - Slaughter commented there did not appear to be anything preventing an employer from having a gym in their facility and there seemed to be a great deal of emphasis put on recreation within the residential areas. Chairman DeHaven agreed that some blending of these two zones could help and taking a look at this issue might be insightful. Commissioner Kenney agreed. He has had numerous requests for this and there was a need to take a look at it in depth. He went on to say it would require a delicate balance. Commissioner Oates noted if this moves forward he would prefer it go through the CUP process. Commissioner Mahn concluded by saying the County needed to dig into what the appropriate uses would be and evaluate the impacts. He felt it was definitely worth a look. Minute Book Number 42 Soard of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08/17/]6 County of Frederick, Virginia LPL+' Other Comments and Discussion Supervisor Fisher stated he had received some requests to look at extended stay lodging/hotels and he suggested the County take another look at this. Supervisor Hess supported Supervisor Fisher's suggestion. Director Ruddy mentioned Airbnb legislation that would be reviewed also. Chairman DeHaven noted the need to protect existing neighborhoods. Supervisor Dunn referred back to the proffer discussion. He was concerned where the balance is in funds allocated and if money was going to parks. parks. Commissioner Oates commented he would rather see funds used for transportation than Supervisor Dunn asked how these types of issues were determined. Commissioner Oates noted it was in the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say a large acreage would have to be a donation or County purchase. County Attorney Williams commented that the County could not make an outright demand and it was a balancing act. Director Ruddy concluded by saying the Comprehensive Plan and Area Plans address this. Director Ruddy thanked everyone for their participation. There being no further business, the work session was adjourned at 1:35 p.m. ��� �� Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Chairman, Board of Supervisors renda G. Garton Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: � � �� Jay E. �'ibl; Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors And ��h�,,./ Shannon L. Conner Administrative Assistant Department of Planning and Development Minute Book 1Vumber 42 Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 08!17!16 County of Frederick, Virginia