Loading...
CPPC 07-10-06 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on July 10, 2006. PRESENT: James W. Golladay, Jr., Opequon District; John Light, Chairman, Stonewall District; June Wilmot, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Al Orndorff, Frederick County Public Schools; Christopher Mohn, Red Bud District; David L. Frank, Top of Virginia Builders; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Wellington H. Jones, Frederick County Sanitation Authority; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Diane S. Kearns, Gainesboro District; H. Paige Manuel, Member At Large. ABSENT: Sue Ann Teal, Town of Stephens City; Roger Thomas, Opequon District, Jay S. Banks, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Stonewall District. STAFF PRESENT: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner I; Bev Dellinger, Secretary H. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Light at 6:30 p.m. Chairman Light turned the meeting over to Mrs. Eddy. Mrs. Eddy stated that the seven Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Applications are tonight's only agenda item. Mrs. Eddy further stated that the Committee's role in the yearly Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is to review the applications and to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission on which of these applications merit further study. The Committee is not being asked to vote tonight on whether this is a good Comp. Plan Amendment as presented. The recommendation the Committee is being asked tonight is, does this application merit further study. Once the recommendations are made, they will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. The Secretary is here tonight, taping minutes, so there will be a record of the Committee's discussions and recommendations. The Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will hold their joint work session on July 31, 2006 at 12:00 noon, in the Board Room. The Board and Commission will judge at that meeting which applications merit further study. Those applications that pass that test will come back to the CPPS for much more detailed study. Mrs. Eddy stated that at this point in time, there are about 9,900 lots from residentially zoned land that are already approved, planned or potential. There are another 25,000 potential lots within the UDA from other residential development for parcels that aren't zoned RP yet. Potentially at this point, we have a worst case scenario of 35,000 lots inside the UDA. -1- Mrs. Eddy said the UDA study began in February of 2005 and it is still ongoing. It may be that some of the amendments tonight are worthy of further study right now. There may be some the Committee thinks are worthy of study, but may be more so as part of the whole UDA study. Mrs. Eddy stated that after she finishes the introduction, she will give a short presentation, under ten minutes, on each application in the order they were received. Then the applicant will give a presentation for ten minutes. Mr. Suchicital will be working the timer. The Committee can then ask staff or the applicant questions. The intent is to then move on to the next application. As there may also be people from the public here tonight, they will be given a chance to speak at the end after the Committee has heard the seven applications. It's probably best for the Committee to hear them all before actually making a recommendation. Committee discussion will take place after the seven applications are presented. Staff and the applicant will be available for any questions or concerns. PRESENTATION PORTION #01-06 — CROSSPOINTE Mrs. Eddy told the Committee that there was basically an identical application that came through last year for Comp. Plan Amendment in 2005. Mrs. Eddy stated that about 90% of the site is in the UDA/SWSA, but the other portion of the site is not. The applicant is seeking the entire site in the UDA/SWSA. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, who is representing the owner, stated that this application is intended to develop as an expansion of the Crosspointe Development. Mr. Sowers further stated that, from a transportation perspective, one of the key items from the Crosspointe Development is Warrior Drive, which actually stops at Hogue Creek where the UDA and SWSA boundary lines are. By including this in the UDA and SWSA with a future rezoning, they will be able to accomplish a portion of the County's transportation goals in the fact that Warrior Drive could then be extended across Hogue Creek to the property line and access the adjacent properties. In addition, there is a small area land use plan for this area as well and including it in the UDA and SWSA would allow the applicant to help achieve the goals already stipulated in that small area land use plan. Mr. Kriz asked why the 52 acres was never requested to be in the UDA and SWSA when it came in originally. Mr. Sowers responded it was purely through the CPPA process so at the time they didn't look for that. The application was filed last year after looking at it and realizing that the 52 acres should be included. Mr. Sowers stated that the actual rezoning stage was a rezoning process, not a CPPA process. Mr. Oates asked if the strip of land along the creek is even buildable. Mr. Sowers responded that portions of it are buildable but there are definitely some environmental features on it. It's a rather narrow strip and its proximity to the creek lends it to some steep slopes. Mr. Sowers stated that the applicant is not intending to use this in order to up the density in the rest of the development. -2- 902-06 — HUNTSBERRY Mrs. Eddy stated that besides the underlying land use in the area, the adjacent Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District came into existence this year; however, the subject parcels are not in the Red Bud Ag and Forestal District. Prior to 2003, a portion of this site was in the UDA. They applied in 2004 and 2005 for this same Comp. Plan Amendment. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, who is representing the owner, stated that it is important to note that at one point, a portion of the property — about 60% - was located within the UDA/SWSA area. One of the key points of this property is its location with respect to the Third Battle of Winchester. The adjacent property was purchased for purposes of historic preservation. Mr. Sowers further stated that what has come to light is the fact that the property, in terms of retail potential, the possibility of a historic preservation entity being able to afford to purchase the property, is rather low. In that regard, it's important to recognize through proffer mechanisms the ability to actually proffer out uses or proffer land dedications. Mr. Sowers said that while he is only here to talk about actual land use and not technical proffers, there is a commitment to south of Red Bud Run to actually dedicate that as part of a historic preservation easement. Mr. Sowers said from a transportation standpoint, this property's potential to develop is a little higher in the sense that, with Stephenson Village and North Stephenson rezonings, transportation improvements are in place to at least happen that will allow the property to develop through the relocation of Red Bud Road. Not necessarily for a high intensity residential use, but for a lower intensity RP type use. The location of the property certainly lends itself for that type of development. Mr. Golladay asked what effect, if this is added, will all these people and houses have on the battlefield. Mr. Sowers answered that obviously there would be impacts from a residential development and that's where the idea of using Red Bud Run as a division line between the preserve area and the residential areas came about. Mr. Mohn asked the condition of the subject acreage and Mr. Sowers replied portions of it would be in the flood plain with the idea of using an interpretive -type trail along Red Bud Run within the flood plain. The vast majority is outside the flood plain. #03-06 — NEWTOWN VILLAGE Mrs. Eddy stated that it's very important to understand that, because of the annexation, the Town of Stephens City borders the southern end of the subject property, and Stephens City is responsible for its own SWSA provision. There was a Comp. Plan Amendment in 2004 called Newtown Village, but it wasn't this same application. That was for property owned by the same applicant, which is now part of the Town. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. -3- Mr. Mohn asked if Mrs. Eddy had seen anything that suggests how the other Newtown Village would relate to this Newtown Village. Mrs. Eddy replied it is her understanding that there is a rezoning circulating, in the preliminary stage, with the Town. Mrs. Eddy stated that the County does look at applications that go before the Town because there are a lot of joint issues, but she has not seen this one yet. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, who is representing the owner, stated that he has had discussions with staff; unfortunately it was after the packet was submitted and after staff had already reviewed the packet. In talking with their client, instead of expanding both the UDA and SWSA, they would like to look to a SWSA expansion without the UDA for a commercial -type use. A rezoning in the Town is in circulation now for a mixed use development. Mr. Sowers stated that it's important to note that the Stephens City Bypass as shown by the joint land use plan actually bisects the property. The idea being by going to a commercial -type use on the property, on the northern side of the Bypass and having a mixed use development that can use the commercial portion to the south. Because the property is bisected, the actual useable acreage is around 60 acres as compared to the 80 acres in the application packet. Mr. Kriz asked if it will be all commercial and no residential. Mr. Sowers replied that is correct. #04-06 — SOLENBERGER — REST CHURCH Mrs. Eddy stated this is the only request that, as submitted, was only for SWSA, is not seeking UDA expansion and is not seeking residential. At this point, Chairman Light stated that he will abstain from this item and he asked Mr. Golladay to chair this item. Ms. Kearns stated that she, too, will abstain from this item. Mrs. Eddy stated that a portion of the site is already within the SWSA area. The whole site is 287 acres, but only a small portion is within the SWSA area. The Comprehensive Policy Plan already calls for commercial that's within the SWSA area, so these portions of these two parcels are already planned for commercial and are already in the SWSA area. The applicant is seeking SWSA and a designation as industrial with supporting commercial closer to the interchange. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, who is representing the owner, stated that the key part of this application is its location to transportation infrastructure. With its proximity to the interchange on 81, and with such good access to transportation infrastructure, it lends the property to both a commercial and industrial type use. As staff pointed out, the portion within the SWSA currently is designated as a commercial type use and this application seeks to expand the SWSA for an industrial -type use outside of the existing commercial, so it would be a commercial/industrial combination. -4- #05-06 — ROUND HILL CENTER / NATIONAL LUTHERAN HOME Mr. Mohn and Mr. Frank informed Chairman Light that they must recuse themselves from this item. Mrs. Eddy pointed out that the subject property is on Route 50, west of Route 37. Mrs. Eddy stated that she included the existing Round Hill Community Land Use Plan with this application. The SWSA area was recently expanded in the Round Hill area. However, much of the subject site isn't covered by the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The Round Hill Plan calls for commercial along Route 50. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. Mr. Jim Vickers, Chairman and owner of Oakcrest Companies, who is representing the owner, stated that he will present a portion of the presentation and then turn it over to Pastor Utt to finalize it. Mr. Vickers gave a history of how he came to represent the Lutheran Church in their quest for property in order to create a retirement community, or continuing care community. The ownership of the property would remain through the Lutheran Church and an entity that is the National Lutheran Home. The property owners are the Wilkins' family and they really bought into the need, the want and the benefit of what the Lutheran Church wanted to achieve. This tract would add a series of parcels that would be commercial use; the majority of the remaining parcels would be a series of different types of a retirement community with one small area of transitional residential. The potential of this tract being developed would allow the water and sewer lines to approach much closer to the Round Hill area. Pastor Jim Utt of Grace Lutheran Church stated he has been involved in looking at the opportunity for them to extend the mission and the ministry of the National Lutheran Home. They are before the Committee as an expression of the Church. The mission and ministry of the National Lutheran Home is to provide affordable housing and quality long-term care for all senior citizens; this is not sectarian. They are not motivated by profit. The National Lutheran Home is not a developer. They see themselves as partners with those who care for their community and who are especially concerned for what will happen to our aging population. Ms. Kearns asked approximately how many residents they're talking about. Pastor Utt responded they're looking at a phasing of building first independent living units and probably looking at 40 to 60 such units that would house 70, 80, 100 people. #06-06 — CLEARVIEW Mrs. Eddy stated that this application has two parts -- a land use amendment and a text amendment. This application was a Comp. Plan Amendment in 2004 and 2005. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. Another part of the application is two text amendments. Mrs. Eddy read both proposed text Amendments. Mrs. Eddy wanted to be sure that the Committee understands that there are two parts for discussion with this application. Mrs. Eddy pointed out there is a letter from Painter - Lewis at the end of this application with some thoughts on the whole Comp. Plan process. -5- Mr. Ty Lawson was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lawson stated that this comes on the heels of the Planning Commission hearing where there was some discussion about shrinking the UDA and he thinks many members of the Planning Commission said before we do that, this Comp. Plan Committee ought to look at things first and then give some direction to the Planning Commission and the Board as to where we go with the UDA. That's primarily where Mr. Lewis' comments are coming from. Mr. Lawson stated it would probably be important to figure out, of the 35,000 potential lots, how many of those are real. Many different developers that have "potential" lots and what they end up with are usually, in all cases, far less. Through this process, we're looking into the future, where development isn't going to be necessarily today, but where it ought to be. In the proposed text amendments, the Comp. Plan process actually invites that, not only what kind of uses do you foresee in this particular tract of land, but do you have any ideas for text amendments. Mr. Lawson went on to discuss the content and reasoning for the proposed amendments. Mr. Lawson stated that the Stiles farm, which is to the north of the property, is all in two acre lots being done by Elite Homes. There is housing all around the property. When you combine the road networks with the water and sewer and with what's around the property, this ought to be residential and by -right, it's five acre density. Mr. Lawson thinks that's a shame, it ought to be something denser and, although it's not part of the Comp. Plan process, rezoning has been submitted for comments from the various agencies for a very restricted, proffered rezoning, which is an age -restricted community. #07 — THE GROVE Mrs. Eddy pointed out that, of the proposed UDA/SWSA line changes that had been presented to the Planning Commission, this was the only one of the seven applications where one of the actual properties would have been affected by the boundary changes. The proposed Route 37 is immediately to the east of the property. There are the same text amendments attached to this application as #06-06. Mrs. Eddy presented the highlights of this application. Mr. Ty Lawson was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lawson stated this one is pretty dramatic in the sense that the lines, the sewer and water service area and UDA, do bisect the property. Mr. Lawson feels it's very appropriate for some kind of expanded density. Chairman Light asked if anyone is present who would like to speak and no one responded. DISCUSSION PORTION #01-06 — CROSSPOINTE Mr. Kriz asked how far along is Crosspointe on their whole plan and Mr. Sowers answered the Master Plan has been completed and sent out for agency comments. It's a matter of actually getting VDOT on board with the transportation improvements in terms of the 81 interchange. Mr. Mohn stated that when Crosspointe was first submitted for rezoning, the application included the acreage that's a part of this CPPA. When it was identified by staff that the acreage -6- was outside of the UDA, the applicant at that time, rather than going through a full process to bring it in and include it in the rezoning, opted to pull back the boundary of their rezoning to the existing UDA boundary and move forward. Ms. Kearns stated that the only thing that concerns here is the point that Mr. Oates brought up earlier about how much of this space is buildable and what is the best use for it. Ms. Wilmot stated that it makes sense in her mind to include it and to recommend that it move forward. But should this piece of land be incorporated in the land use study that further finishes the work that hasn't been finished. Mr. Mohn stated that he believes they should really look at that whole area if they're going to look at a piece that adjoins it. Assuming this would move forward all the way into the process, the adjoining land should be looked at as well. Mr. Oates stated that he agrees with that, and with the UDA study going on, new urbanism ideas, maybe we need to look at that entire block. Chairman Light stated that his recommendation would be for a land use plan but also with specific statements towards the development of Route 37. Ms. Wilmot made a motion to move Amendment 0 1 -06 to the Board with a recommendation for further examination, but also to include studying the area west of Route 522 to Interstate 81. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kriz and the vote was unanimous. #02-06 — HUNTSBERRY Mr. Oates said he remembers in 2001 or 2002 when Stephenson Village was being looked at and Howard Kittell came and this area was discussed. He thinks this is when this area was changed and the UDA got pulled back. Mr. Kittell spoke that everything basically south of Red Bud Road was of historically significance and that's why the designation got placed on the entire area. Along with the new Ag District, Mr. Oates doesn't see this as a very compatible use. Stephenson Village is to the north of this, but it's not in contact with it. Ms. Kearns agrees with Mr. Oates. At the time they were talking about the Northeast Land Plan, Ms. Kearns remembers there being this developmentally sensitive area, and at that time everyone felt that it was pretty much intact as a whole and it was all important. Mr. Golladay stated he didn't see where it would further anybody's purpose to move that into residential. Mr. Kriz feels we don't need to bring in anything else that would be strictly residential at this time. -7- Mr. Oates stated that when the original UDA line was through the property - that was back in the early or middle 80's - that's when one piece was zoned RP that's now owned by the Battlefield. In the last 20 years, things around there have gone in the direction of preserving that land. Mr. Oates recommended denial of this application due to the incompatibility of neighboring uses. Mr. Kriz seconded this recommendation and the vote was unanimous. #03-06 — NEWTOWN VILLAGE Mr. Kriz stated that he hates it when something comes in at the last minute changed and he has made this comment very clear before that he will not vote in favor of something, no matter how good it is, slid in under the door at the last minute. Even though this would be for commercial and for SWSA, Mr. Kriz feels they didn't have enough time to look at it from that aspect and he cannot support this one. Mr. Oates stated a couple of things that disturb him on this one are access to state roads and not knowing exactly what's going on across the line in Stephens City as far as their plan and application. As far as business, Mr. Oates agrees with Mr. Kriz that coming in at the last second isn't appropriate. Mr. Oates thinks that in the future this could be looked at — that's a lot of land along the railroad and maybe a business/industrial use would be appropriate once other things are in place, but at this time, it's a little too early. Ms. Kearns stated that the application really says RP and now the applicant says they've changed it. Is that the way it can work? Mrs. Eddy stated that the application deadline was June 1St and they did submit it by June 1St Mrs. Eddy had done the analysis and staff had already copied everything and had it prepared to go out, when the applicant asked if they could change to commercial. At that point, staff wasn't about to redo everything. They can stand up in front of you and say they've changed their mind and ask just for SWSA for commercial purposes. Mrs. Eddy doesn't have any other details. Mr. Kriz stated he realizes that, but deadlines are deadlines and if you change your mind at the last minute, that doesn't cut any ice with him. Mr. Golladay stated he agreed with Mr. Kriz. We spent an awful lot of time trying to develop that piece with Stephens City and he understands now they want to put all houses on it. Mr. Golladay asked if this is a trade-off for the houses they want to put on the land that was designated commercial/industrial. There's a railroad track that runs right beside this, and he lives close to the railroad track, and that train doesn't travel very fast. The infrastructure is not there and we don't know when it will be there. Ms. Wilmot stated that she agrees that as much as we are in need of upping our commercial and industrial inventory, she isn't too sure this is the right place or the right time. She expects that the people that live in those houses aren't angry at the train so much as what might be put on the -s- site. Ms. Wilmot further stated that this is a beautiful area and she thinks there are some real challenges in what this will be in the future, and if we're going to look at this one particular site, we ought to look at this whole keyhole. Mr. Mohn agrees with Ms. Wilmot that when we do look at this, it should be that entire area that's chiseled out between the UDA and the SWSA boundary and Stephens City, but he tends to agree with everybody else, he doesn't see the rush at this point especially with another application coming along. Mr. Kriz recommended denial of 03-06. Mr. Mohn seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 404-06 — SOLENBERGER — REST CHURCH Chairman Light stated that he will abstain from this item and turn the meeting over to Mr. Golladay. Ms. Kearns abstained as well. Mr. Kriz stated that we need industrial area and he doesn't see any problem with this and he's fully supportive of this one to move it on. Mr. Mohn agreed with Mr. Kriz. Mr. Oates stated he is in favor of it, but he thinks we really need to impress upon the applicant when he comes in for rezoning that we have some pretty good buffers against the residential units. There are quite a number of houses. Mr. Mohn stated that if this goes forward, we would really want to carefully deal with compatibility issues. Mr. Golladay stated he thinks the whole key to it is the type and kind of industrial usage. Mr. Kriz recommended that 04-06 be moved forward for consideration. Ms. Wilmot seconded and the vote was unanimous. #05-06 — ROUND HILL CENTER / NATIONAL LUTHERAN HOME Mr. Frank and Mr. Mohn recused themselves from this item. Mr. Kriz stated that the purpose of the Lutheran Home, being right next to the Medical Center, that portion of it really makes a lot of sense. Commercial along the front of it would help push it out there toward Round Hill. Mr. Kriz stated we're getting a lot of age -restricted developments, but he doesn't want any single-family housing there, and he is semi -supportive of this. Mr. Golladay stated that he doesn't have a problem with what they want to do, but he does have a problem with putting this in the Urban Development Area. Mr. Golladay asked Mrs. Eddy if -9- this would be the first applicant that would go forward that would be in the Urban Development Area west of Route 37. Mrs. Eddy replied this would be the first real development planned to be west of 37 and 81. This would be the first conscious move westward. Mr. Golladay questions whether that's the proper precedent at this time. Mr. Golladay further stated that some have worked long and hard to keep the Urban Development Area out of the agricultural areas in the County. He believes that once it's started, where does it stop? He doesn't have a problem with the purpose and what they want to do. It's the mere fact of the matter that we're putting this land in the Urban Development Area that may eventually be rezoned for residential, and what do you tell the next guy that comes in? The County needs to be consistent in this. If this is the way the County wants to go, then maybe we ought to look at the entire ordinance in Urban Development Area and redo the whole thing. Ms. Kearns stated that she's an adjacent landowner and actually the Lutheran Home does make sense, with the Medical Center right there, it's not single family houses, but she agrees with Mr. Golladay. She doesn't have a problem with the Lutheran Home and what they want to do, but what does that set you up for in the future. Ms. Kearns likes the applicant's concept of integrating things. Mr. Oates asked if the solution could be to put nursing homes or retirement homes in the MS District and just move the SWSA. Then you have design standards already in place. Mr. Golladay stated that then you have the residential thing in the SWSA area and he doesn't know if we've ever done that before. The SWSA area was never set up for residential, but strictly for commercial and industrial purposes. Mr. Oates said he's looking at it as a long term care, nursing facility. Mr. Golladay said nursing facilities are fine, but like Westminster -Canterbury, can you separate the residential side from the nursing side when they're all integrated. He doesn't think you can. Mr. Oates stated he thinks the break would be assisted living and non -assisted living. Ms. Wilmot stated that Mrs. Eddy reminded her of the grand confusion over the Round Hill map. The point is we have phases in it that really don't represent types of development. She is inclined to suggest, also based on what happened when we took a look at the community centers, certainly Round Hill is one where we said we have got to do more work. Ms. Wilmot's sense is that this would be a good opportunity to take a look at the Round Hill area study within the concepts of the UDA study — it either goes now or it goes later. Her sense is that we've got to clean up what we established as the Round Hill plan anyway, so why not take a look at all of it. Mr. Kriz stated they can make the recommendation one way or the other, but it's the Board of Supervisors who's going to say whether to push the UDA west of 37. This could be sort of a test case to see if they want to go beyond 37. Ms. Kearns stated that she doesn't have a clear sense of what this corridor is supposed to look like. What kind of thing are we talking about? She can almost see it as a regional type thing more so than some of the other corridors. That's part of her problem; she can't see what this is. Ms. Wilmot thinks this may be the opportunity to do it. Mr. Kriz asked Ms. Wilmot is she's suggesting that the community centers be studied. Ms. Wilmot said no, she's suggesting that we move this forward with two things happening: that this becomes part of the conclusion of the UDA study; and as far as community centers, it's evident that we really need to do some major work there. Mr. Golladay asked Ms. Wilmot when she proposes to do this. Ms. Wilmot stated she's taking guidance from Mrs. Eddy who said we have two choices to make: we can recommend that it move forward as it merits further study now, or we recommend that it goes forward with study as part of the UDA study. She thinks it's fair to ask the Board of Supervisors that question. Mr. Golladay asked if we have to move it forward at all. Mrs. Eddy responded that you're being asked if this is worthy of further study. Mr. Golladay stated his only concern is that it doesn't get lost in the translation, that even though it deserves further study, that they're not giving approval. Mr. Golladay is still of the opinion that this is going to open a Pandora's box in Frederick County that this County may never, ever come back from. Mrs. Eddy stated, for perspective, that last year, there were nine Comp. Plan Amendments, and two were judged to be worthy of further study. They were further studied, but they were not approved. She hopes that the applicants understand that further study is not a guarantee of approval. Mrs. Eddy followed up on Ms. Wilmot's comments that if you want it studied immediately, what we usually do with Comp. Plan Amendments is just jump in and study them immediately. It'll probably be on your agenda in September, or if you wanted it to be part of the wider UDA study, it wouldn't be on quite so fast a track. Mr. Kriz believes it doesn't need to be on a fast track, because we have to take a good look at it and study it and not jump in right away. He thinks that this would be one that wouldn't be on our agenda in September, but get some direction from the Board of Supervisors as to how to incorporate it. Ms. Wilmot stated that they knew when they got started in the UDA they'd be looking at some small area planning. In her mind, there's nothing wrong with re -looking at a small area plan that's given us some confusion. Chairman Light stated that his interpretation of this one is we have somewhat aggressively situated a Round Hill plan to get water and sewer to the Round Hill area through what we were -11- thinking was commercial development, not UDA expansions. He would say in this particular plan that he would support the commercial element of this product, that he would also support the business of adult care under an MS District that is probably either a new district or guidelines that we don't have in our current system that would allow this to be cooperative with the MS District, along with architectural review standards for the Route 50 corridor that we should in turn lay out in a comprehensive plan of that corridor. As far as UDA expansion, Chairman Light is not in favor of UDA expansion to allow transitional or residential uses unless they were incorporated in and under the MS District for that particular use. He thinks the question here is we can only go so far. The Board has to make the decision of UDA expansion west of 37. Mr. Kriz made a motion to move this forward with all the discussion involved. Mr. Golladay seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. #06-06 — CLEARVIEW Mr. Golladay brought up the comments that he made before. This is west of 81 and as far as he's concerned 81 and Route 11 are sacrosanct. Mr. Golladay wouldn't support any kind of UDA expansion. Mr. Golladay made a motion to deny this item or make it worthy not to be moved forward. Mr. Golladay stated his motion includes the text amendments. Mr. Kriz seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. #07 — THE GROVE Mr. Mohn referred back to the UDA public meeting that we had not long ago, and looking at this part of Red Bud District, there was enough of an open question in his mind about how uses should transition toward Sulphur Springs Road or transition over toward Route 50, and without making any judgment about how this application might come together, he thinks it is worth studying or at least looking into. Mr. Oates stated one thing he is not comfortable with is residential units coming down over the hill toward the landfill. He thinks this warrants a more definitive land use plan and possibly looking at industrial business in that area. Mr. Mohn agreed with Mr. Oates, Ms. Kearns stated this is something that needs to be looked at but in the scope of the whole UDA study. Ms. Wilmot asked if this area would have a dot for a neighborhood center in the UDA study? Mrs. Eddy stated there were a number of centers in this area. One was where the Orrick site was and another one located generally in this area. It was one of the things still being looked at by the UDA study group. Mr. Mohn recommended that we forward CPPA 07-06 with the recommendation of further study. Mr. Kriz asked if that's minus the two amendments. Mr. Mohn stated that he would think that everything would be on the table for the purposes of study. Mr. Golladay said as long as it stays in the Urban Development Area; he doesn't want anybody to get the idea that simply because it was approved here, they would approve it at the other place. Mr. Mohn looks at this totally in the context of a UDA expansion. Ms. Kearns sees this as two different things: the text amendments and the application for expansion. Mr. Mohn amended his motion to recommend that we forward for further study the UDA expansion component of #07-06, but he would recommend that we not forward for study, or recommendation of denial, the text amendment portion. Ms. Kearns seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Oates noted that no one from the newspapers was present tonight. Mrs. Eddy stated they were notified and had full agendas, but chose not to be here. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm by unanimous vote. -13-