Loading...
BZA 10-21-03 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on October 21, 2003. PRESENT James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Thomas Malcolm, Shawnee District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; Robert Perry, Stonewall District; Theresa Catlett, Vice Chairman, Opequon District; and, Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. STAFF PRESENT Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. SEPTEMBER 30.2003 MINUTES On a motion by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Perry, the minutes for the September 30, 2003 minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARING Application 412 -03 of Stephens City Storage, LLC, submitted by Darren Foltz, to request an exemption from the buffer requirement of Section 65- 44F(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, requiring a double row of evergreen trees in those areas of the site with steep slopes and existing woodlands. This property is located on the north side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), 2,500 feet from the intersection with Double Church Road (Route 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -5 -F in the Opequon Magisterial District. ACTION -VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, gave the background information. The subject property is zoned B2 as Business General, and the land use is self - storage units that are currently under construction. Adjoining land uses are zoned Residential Performance and use is residential.. Mr. Davenport pointed out the subject site on the screen. The applicant is seeking a variance from a § 165- 44F(1), which states that facilities located in the B2 Business District shall be completely screened around the perimeter of the property by a double row of evergreen trees. The applicant submitted a site plan to the Planning Department for review on January 27, 2003. The site plan was administratively approved on May 6, 2003. The construction of the self - storage units are underway and several of the units are nearing completion, but there are no certificates of occupancy issued as of today. Mr. Davenport pointed out Exhibit "A" in the Board's agenda, a sketch provided Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1209MinutesofOctober21, 2003 g Page 2 by the applicant of the areas where the trees are proposed to not be planted, which shall be called proposed no -plant areas ". These no -plant areas are proposed on the eastern property line. One area is about 250 feet north of the right -of -way and covers an area of about 220 feet in length. There is a second area covering about 200 feet in length that is along the northern end of that eastern property line. It is estimated that this request will exempt about 100 trees from being planted. Mr. Davenport showed an aerial view of the property. Since the subject property adjoins properties that are zoned RP, a category `B' zoning district buffer is required between the subject property and adjoining properties. On the approved site plan, a "full screen option" was shown. Mr. Davenport referred Members to the screen, showing that a full screen option provides the elements of a landscape screen. Also, a landscape screen consists of a landscape easement about ten feet in depth, the landscaping density is three plants per ten linear feet. Furthermore, the plants are supposed to be four feet in height in planting; reach a minimum height of six feet at maturity, three species of plants are required, the majority being evergreens and the minority being deciduous. The full screen option also includes a six -foot high opaque element, which can be a hedge, fence, wall, mound or a berm. There is also another requirement for screening regarding mini - storage facilities in the B2 zoning district. It says in 44F(1), there is an additional requirement that storage facilities in the B2 have to be completely screened around the perimeter by a double row of evergreen trees, staggered. Additional requirements are that plantings are required to be located between the adjoining property line and the placement of a security fence. Basically, the storage facilities in the B2 have the double row of evergreen trees or the fence. Mr. Davenport showed a slide of the screening options. Using both screening requirements, strictly interpreted, Option 1 requires a double row of evergreen trees per 44F(l) and the zoning district buffer of a single row of trees with a six -foot high fence. Option 2 under strict interpretation is a single row of trees as a zoning district buffer and a fence, but also includes the option of substituting a second fence for the double row of trees. On the site plan, Staff made an interpretation which the property owner and consultants agreed would be a compromise: the double row of evergreen trees per 44F(1) and the six -foot high opaque fence. Mr. Davenport screened photos taken last week showing the site area that is requested for the no- planting zone. The photos show a rocky slope, somewhat eroded, not stabilized. Mr. Davenport stated that the areas where the applicant has requested this no- planting variance does contain some topography of a moderate nature; however, Staffs contention is that the developer should have the responsibility to assess the site development constraints prior to proposing and initiating a project like this. To propose no- planting areas that do not contain exceptional topography features and the elimination of these plantings previously agreed to under the site plan, in Staff s opinion, would circumvent the provisions of the zoning district buffer and further reduce the screening and buffer exception allowed by Staff. In Staff s opinion, this requirement for the planting screening does not propose an undue hardship and the granting of this variance as submitted may be of substantial detriment to the surrounding properties. Since conditions (a) and the first section of (c) under § 15.2- 2309(2) have not been met, the denial of this variance would be appropriate. Chairman Larrick commented that in the staff report it was stated that this was previously agreed to and he asked what happened that made this no longer agreeable. Mr. Davenport responded that it may have looked good on paper but when the site gets developed, it turns out that it isn't as easy as it looked. Chairman Larrick asked if there would be a fence placed on the eastern side and Mr. Davenport replied yes, under the site plan there is still the six -foot high opaque element. Mr. Darren Foltz of Foltz Land Surveying approached the podium on behalf of the Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 21, 2003 Minute Book Page 1210 Page 3 owners of Stephens City Storage, Paul Negley and Don Stotler, who were also present. Mr. Foltz said that according to what Staff has come up with, it would seem there is no undue hardship. However, they feel that the hardship may not be in planting the trees but in keeping the trees alive. If they plant on the slopes, it is very doubtful they can be kept alive. Staff has the opportunity to come out every year and review the site plan for compliance, and if they see dead trees, they can say you need to replant them. They are trying to circumvent that right now. Mr. Foltz stated the owners had put their faith in their engineers and he doesn't believe anyone got a feel for how steep that slope was until it was there. Mr. Foltz stated they're only talking about a certain portion along the eastern line, the rest of the property still has the buffer around it, with the trees. Mr. Foltz stated they have approached an adjoining property owner to buy his property, to buy a strip of his property and/or to try to get an easement from him so they could plant the trees on the top of the slope and use that as a buffer. But he was not receptive to any offer. Mr. Foltz reiterated that they feel their hardship is in keeping the trees alive on the slope and constantly being reviewed for those trees. It is not feasible to plant the trees there, it really serves to block no one's view. The property to the east more than likely will be rezoned to a business. Mr. Rinker asked what is the reasoning for feeling the trees will not survive. Mr. Foltz responded that, first of all, the ground is hard shale, and he showed the Board some pictures of the subject site. Mr. Perry stated that he could not understand the site development engineer when he put the topo lines on, not realizing what the grade was. Mr. Foltz responded that Mr. Negley and Mr. Stotler put their faith in the professionals to design the site plan and this is what was ended up with. Mr. Paul Negley, part owner of Stephens City Storage, approached the podium. Mr. Negley said that when he worked with Greenway Engineering, at no time did they tell him there was going to be a ten -foot cut, and that the ten -foot cut was going to take place in a narrow strip of land. He knew they had to do some cutting, but he had no idea it was going to be that severe. After they got started is when he realized that as steep as that slope is, trees could not be kept alive on that slope. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Negley how he developed a site plan without knowing what the cut and fill was going to be. Mr. Negley responded that Greenway did all the engineering work and gave him something that he said would work, and Mr. Negley took them at their word. Mr. Larrick stated that, according to Mr. Davenport, the County made some concessions over a strict application of the rules at the time the site plan was submitted. Mr. Foltz said they chose one buffer over another. Mr. Davenport stated that it was a blending of it, a single row of trees was removed, but the fence is still there. Mr. Rinker asked Mr. Foltz several questions about the area between the building and where the cut is. There was discussion concerning travel aisles, drainage and where trees could be planted or the fence placed. There was also discussion about placing mulch on the slope and whether the mulch would hold to the slope. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 21, 2003 Minute Book Page 1211 Page 4 Mr. Wells arrived at 3:50 PM.) Mr. Foltz stated if it's pleasing to put the fence at the property line, that's something they feet would help with the buffer of the adjoining property. Vice Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Foltz if the fence was put on top of the hill, would there be enough room on the property to plant trees behind the fence. Mr. Foltz stated he did not think so, and that is why they're here. He doesn't think there is room to plant the trees on the slope or on top of the slope. Mr. Perry asked if a qualified nurseryman had made this assessment and Mr. Foltz responded that he had talked to Lou Boyer of Boyer Landscapes. Mr. Boyer felt that if the trees did live, they probably wouldn't have any good growth rate, which is what you want for your buffer. Mr. Malcolm asked about cutting a trough across the top of the slope to level it out and plant the trees. Mr. Malcolm stated that he has concerns about the last suggestion, that if you put the fence on top, you have taken a requirement that was an ideal and reduced it by two thirds by taking two rows of trees out, leaving just an opaque buffer. So the original intent of the ordinance has been reduced by at least two thirds. Mr. Foltz stated they are only talking about replacing that part of the buffer in the areas of the steep slope, so you do have the berm there instead of the trees, increasing the height of the fence There was discussion concerning leveling or terracing the bank and the draining ditch line among the Board members and Mr. Negley. Chairman Larrick closed the public portion of the hearing. Vice Chairman Catlett stated that she felt may they could get something like a telephone pole digger and use that to dig the holes in the slope for the trees and fill the holes with good quality dirt. Mr. Rinker stated that when you dig it out you would create a pan, basically a bowl, and the tree would retain the water and you could end up with rotting tree roots. Mr. Perry stated that rocky shale would not hold water. Mr. Wells stated that he drove by and talked to Mr. Boyer. Mr. Boyer's opinion is that you don't have a good chance of trees living in that particular area; they would be very compromised to grow effectively. Mr. Davenport stated that one of the underlying reasons for so many trees is it's obvious that some of them aren't going to live for a long period of time. If you're planting evergreens like white pines, eight feet off centers, they have a much larger canopy than that and it would be reasonable Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 21, 2003 Minute Book Page 1212 Page 5 to expect a property owner to do some selective thinning if one tree is maturing properly and another tree isn't. If.someone is maintaining their site but still keeping a buffer in place, it certainly wouldn't be a zoning violation. Mr. Perry reiterated that he really has a hard time with a site engineer developing a site plan and not having any idea what the slope was going to be. Mr. Davenport stated that the Board does have the option to modify the request as long as the variance isn't being increased. Certain modifications have been done before. Vice Chairman Catlett made a motion that the request be denied as presented and Mr. Perry seconded. The vote was unanimous with the exception of Mr. Wells, who abstained because he arrived late. As there were no other items to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, C1 James La rr ck, Jr., Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 21, 2003 Minute Book Page 1213