Loading...
CPPC 04-10-06 Meeting AgendaCI OUNTY of FREDERICK ■mom — - Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/635-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner ske- RE: April Meeting and Agenda DATE: April 3, 2006 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, April 10, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisor's Room of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA Urban Development Area (UDA) Study update 2. Other Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. SKE/bad Access is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the back double doors of the Board of Supervisors Room, located in the rear of the new addition of the County building. I would encourage committee members and interested citizens to park in the County parking lot located in the rear of the building and follow the sidewalk to the back double doors of the Board Room. FILE COPY 107 North Kh ent Street, Suite 202 * Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 NMW�. — - — - ICOUNTY of FRED ERIC1K Department of Planning and Development TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP — Deputy Planning Director 1-� RE: UDA Study Update — Public Participation Phase DATE: April 2, 2006 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee and the UDA Working Group continues to progress with the Urban Development Area Study. Following the successful Planning Commission Retreat and recent Local Land Planning, Design, and Development Stakeholder Work Session, the UDA Working Group is eager to move forward with the public process phase of the Urban Development Area Study. The schedule for the next steps of the UDA Study, and an outline of the public process phase, is attached for the CPPS's discussion. The targeted public meetings have been tentatively scheduled for May and June. The format of the meetings is anticipated to be interactive with a phased approach that will provide for the development of the public's participation in a manner that builds upon the land use concepts introduced and enhances the goals of the UDA Study. The more detailed neighborhood planning exercises are anticipated to occur in the late summer of 2006 following a proposed joint work session with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The UDA Working Group continues with their regularly scheduled meetings on the Vt and 3rd Tuesdays of each month from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m, to progress the efforts of the UDA Study. An additional meeting will occur this month as the group will also meet on April 11 to from 1 I a.m. to 1 p.m. It is anticipated that upcoming meetings will include coordination with Schools and Parks and Recreation, and a design based meeting with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department of Fire and Rescue. The CPPS's discussion and consideration of this item will assist Staff in finalizing the details of this active portion of the UDA Study. Staff is anticipating providing the Planning Commission with an update at their April 19, 2006 meeting and the Board of Supervisors with an update at their April 26, 2006 meeting. 107 Forth Kent Street.; Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 UDA Study (04/02/06 Update) Onaoina General tasks: Refinement of UDA analysis model and update of UDA tables UDA Policy related tasks: Public Process — (Identification of the next steps in the process of the UDA Study and the study time frame). • Targeted Public Meetings introducing UDA Land Use Concepts and Neighborhood Centers. (Spring 2006) Phase 1 (Intro): Tuesday, May 9, and Thursday, May 11, 2006 Phase 2 (Focus): Monday, June 5, and Thursday, June 8, 2006 Parallel Task. - Staff drafting/rewriting of Land Use section of Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to UDA Study and based upon concepts generally agreed upon to date. • Work Session with CPPS/PCBOS (June/July 2006) Provide summary of Public Meetings, Study Direction, and obtain feedback. • Development of Neighborhood Center Land Use Plans. (August/Sept. 2006) Development of new neighborhood mixed use center plans/location specific plans designed to implement UDA Study goals CPPS/PC/BOS. Focus on specific, targeted centers in the UDA. Design Team and Facilitators. Implementation of model ordinances tailored to Neighborhood Land Use Concepts and identified Neighborhood Centers. (Summer/Fall 2006) Simple effective implementation steps first — leading to more detailed approach Parallel Tasks: Review of existing small area land use plans for consistency with UDA Study. Development of potential land use alternatives for adjacent UDA areas based upon principles of UDA Study (Done). UDA Working Group Meetings: (1st and 3rd Tuesdays of each month, 11 a.m. — 1 p.m.) April 4, 2006 April 11, 2006 (additional meeting) April 18, 2006 UDA — New Urbanism — March 7, 2006 — Notes Land Planning, Design & Development Stakeholder Work session Private sector firms in attendance: Greenway Engineering, Sympoetica, Alexander Homes, Wilkins Development, PHR&A, Top of Virginia Building Association— Glaize, Oakcrest, Miller & Smith, Artz & Associates, German Engineering, Bowman Consultants, Van Mehre Homes, Painter -Lewis, Stowe. Georize Kriz • We need flexibility and a good balance between commercial and residential development. Consideration must be made for sewage capacity and future federal regulations on nutrient flow. JP Carr • Can we make changes to existing zoned land? People have fixed ideas of what should the density be in their neighborhoods. TNDs are more expensive to develop. ® Lock down the UDA boundary. We must have room for residential to expand and enough for commercial growth that will follow the rooftops. You have targeted village centers in locations that are currently not for sale. What do you do about that? Evan W.y A How much involvement the working group has had with VDOT? v Mike Ruddy: Do you design your community around the largest fire truck, or design the fire truck around the community? David Frank • This will seem difficult to accomplish. Large and small scale builders have different capabilities. It appears that the large scale firms will be better positioned to tackle this idea, leaving the small firms behind. June Wilmot • How far away is the future? • JP Carr: It would take at least five years for a large project to get started. Evan Witt • 10 year outlook in the Comp Plan is too short for this County. Richie Wilkins • How do we implement this idea of an urban village in the RP, through the R4 District? • Mike Ruddy: The R4 district will work, but only on projects of 100 acres or more. We would have to modify the R4 for smaller lots. JP Carr • What if you have 10 lots of 8-10 acres a piece? How do you designate which property will be commercial and which will be residential? A 60/40 split will not work in this scenario. We (the development community) need predictability (certainty). • What do you do about property owners who do not want to sell their land that happens to be the keystone to the whole deal? • Mike Ruddy: We will do small area plans. Richie Wilkins • Sounds like we're not going to get more flexible. It sounds like there will be a lot more detail and oversight from the government. o Mike Ruddy: We are trying to achieve a set of goals, guidelines, and details (standards). Tom Paquelet • Is the County looking for certain areas for these performance standards and overlay districts? Mike Perry • We may need to bring in a 3rd party to help the County sharpen their vision, and assist the developers in showing them how to get their projects through and with their unanswered questions. • Time wise, this might take longer to accomplish. The window of opportunity to develop is small for some properties. • Not all commercial components can come online at once. Linda Tier • What is an acceptable level of density? Steve Gyurisin • Infill lots will be looked at heavily in 20 years to complete these projects. • This is the beginning of a public/private partnership. Schools and parks should be targeted ahead in the planning process. • Flexibility is important, and so is density. Can you make a prediction with a flexible design standard? It will be very difficult to finance a project if certain points are not called out. Phoebe Kilby • Transportation planning difficult to plan with such a flexible plan. VDOT is hard to cooperate with. They (VDOT) must be on board and included in conversation with us from the beginning. • Mike Ruddy: School facilities as well. Mike Artz • Flexibility in UDA is important, but we need continuity. • We will not see the impacts of this for 20-30 years. We must have a group (administrative, not public) that consistently reviews the Comp Plan every 5 years. How do you fit in the small infill projects and come up with the feasibility to do so when you have a large green -field project under construction down the road? • Mike Ruddy: The comprehensive plan is continuity. Patrick Sowers • We must balance flexibility with the scope of the Comp Plan. The timeframe is important to establish, but we need a thorough Comp Plan in place first. Steve Gyurisin • Design standards in Comp Plan: you have identified the village centers on the map, but what were your criteria for selecting them? What about new locations that a developer proposes outside of the identified locations? Will they have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment? • Mike Ruddy: It will be part of the Comp Plan process. Not every center will be the same as the other. Chris Mohn ® Neighborhood centers are at the center of something. The UDA study should identify the existing neighborhoods first. What they have and don't have. Consider public facilities and market forces. Create a framework. Mike Ruddy: The current neighborhoods identified are very broad. Current sites are still general in scope. Lynda Tyler • Has the Work Group gone back to current zoned properties and discussed this with their owners? • What are appropriate densities and numbers to work on this site? c We need predictability. JP Carr © Clear amnesty is needed during the proffer stage. John Lewis • The UDA line took a long time to determine its current location. The County should consider the UDA Flexible as well. Let the developers set the limits of the UDA. New Urbanism Developments is a good idea, but let the private sector hire professional planners to work out the planning details. • There must be a certain benchmark identified for a developer to achieve in order to successfully bid expansion of the UDA. Mark Smith • This is just a single tool in a toolbox. Every property has its season. Opportunities will come up, and we must be able to act on it when it arrives. • This is all about politics. Cave the politicians some cover so that they will be able to move forward. Give them reason to support it. • $$$ - The County should hire additional staff to accomplish this in order to get it right the first time and in a timely manner. • Commercial / Industrial — County needs a market -wide study to determine if we are reaching a saturation point and in what sectors. Christian Swiger • This is Disneyland without the rides. Only the big boys will be able to do this. Let the small firms do the small projects. Linda Hire • Flexibility— If true to form, this will be a good project. This endeavor must be a give- and-take scenario. If it is able to be defined, then some parameters must be established. Klause Baber • It will be a nightmare for the DRRS to write all the new required ordinances. Oakcrest Representatives o Affordability — How are we going to accommodate our kids in this community? The middle class? • Costs — how it will reflect? We can't do it unless you can sell it. JP Carr The County and VDOT must get together on this. Roads to nowhere are being built. Eminent domain must be used to finish our road networks. Building functional roads with no connections is not good planning. You cannot expect and should not ask the developers to build these roads. They should only be responsible for road work that is onsite. U: IBernardlCPPSI Urban Village Centers)WDA Study Group Notes March 7 ?006. doc