Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_04-20-83_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room on.April 20, 1983. PRESENT: Frank Brumback, Chairman; James Golladay, Vice - Chairman; Carl M. McDonald; Kenneth Y. Stiles; A. Lynn Myers; Manuel C. DeHaven; W. French Kirk; M. Domenic Palumbo; George L. Romine CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brumback called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of April 6, 1983. Mr. Golladay noted that on page three, the first paragraph should read, "Mr. Golladay suggested that Mr. Edens redirect the night lighting on the parking lot because of its tendency to reflect off the store window and cause glare for drivers." Mr. Golladay then moved to approve the minutes of April 6, 1983 with this correction. This motion was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BIMONTHLY REPORT Mr. Gyurisin stated that all pending variance applications were approved at the April 19, 1983 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. FINAL APPROVAL OF SIX YEAR PLAN Mr. Horne explained that the Board of Supervisors are required to approve project priorities in their final form for the Six Year Plan. Mr. Horne asked that the Planning Commission review this final list and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Stiles moved that Routes 680 and 694 be reversed on the project list. This motion was seconded by Col. Myers and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors the approval of the final version of the project priority list for the Six 1725 -2- Year Plan with the reversal of Routes 680 and 694 on the priority list. 1983 ANNUAL PREALLOCATION HEARING FOR INTERSTATE PRIMARY URBAN SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Mr. Horne noted that the Board of Supervisors sent a resolution to the hearings encouraging the continuation of improvements on Route 522 North from its current terminus in Cross Junction, Virginia to the West Virginia line and Route 522 South near its northern intersection with Route 50 West. WINCHESTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Petition #005 -83 of Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester to rezone 15.59 acres from R -3 (Residential, General) to R -6 (Multi - Family) in the Gainesboro Magisterial District for a full time life care retirement facility. Mr. Horne gave the background information pertaining to Frederick County. For background material pertaining to City, see Winchester City Planning Commission minutes for April 20, 1983. Mr. Tucker White, member of the Board of Directors for Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester came forward and introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. White introduced the consultant for this project, Mr. Gardner Van Scoyoc of Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc. and the architect Mr. Ronald Crawford of Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford, Shaffner. Mr. Van Scoyoc presented the program offered by Westminster/ Canterbury /Winchester. He stated that this facility will be the fifth Westminster /Canterbury retirement home sponsored by the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches. This nonprofit facility provides basic services to allow older residents to live in this environment for the 1726 -3- rest of their lives. He said that people do not buy units, but obtain a life - lease. Mr. Scoyoc stated that this facility would contain a skilled nursing care unit and a personal care unit. A variety of services will be offered, including general maintenance, food preparation, security, etc. Mr. Ronald Crawford explained how his firm envisioned the structures to be placed on the site. He noted that 658 of the site will be open space. He added that considerable setback was allowed from adjoining property owners. Mr. Crawford stated that the largest buildings (five stories high) will be on the opposite side of the site from the residential neighborhoods. He stated that the drainage rate will not exceed present run -off rate. The access road to the site will be off Route 522 through Frederick Mall Drive. An undetectable emergency entrance will be located off the cul -de -sac on Old Fort Road. This road will be used only in emergency situations and no traffic will go in or out of the site through any residential neighborhoods. Mr. Golladay asked if there was a cross -over on Route 522. Mr. Crawford replied there was not and stated that traffic would most probably go to the next nearest cross -over. There next ensued a discussion on the amount of traffic that could be generated from this site as compared to if the site was developed as single family residential. Chairman Brumback called for anyone wishing to speak either in favor or opposition to the rezoning. Mr. John Lewis, an adjoining property owner, came forward and stated that he was in favor of this project. Mr. Lewis felt there was 1727 -4- a real need in the community for this type service and felt it would not adversely effect adjoining properties. Chairman Brumback asked if anyone else wished to speak with regard to the rezoning of the County's portion and no one came forward. Col. Myers asked if this site had any historic areas. Mr. Crawford stated that a historical trail and fragments of old stone fences exist on the site. He explained that these create natural trails through wooded areas and will be retained. The Commission next discussed the eligibility of the applicant for Industrial Development Authority financing. Mr. Stiles asked whether Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester would be responsible for maintenance of any drainage ponds on the site and Mr. Horne replied that they would and necessary agreements will be drawn up. The Winchester City Planning Commission next heard public comments and held discussion for areas of the Westminster /Canterbury/ Winchester located in the City. (See Winchester City Planning Commission minutes of April 20, 1983.) Mr. Horne then explained the impacts of this project in respect to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates this site and the whole Sunnyside area for urban development. Mr. Horne added that the project will have a small impact and only a small portion of the larger buildings will be visible because of existing vegetation. With respect to traffic, Mr. Horne stated the Commission could not required a cross -over on Route 522. He added that traffic generated from this site should be less 1728 -5- than traffic generated if the site was developed under the current zoning, R -3. Col. Myers moved that Rezoning Request #005 -83 of Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester be approved, recognizing that this is a joint project between the City and the County and the final decision should be made by a joint public hearing between the City Council and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Mr. McDonald and was passed by the following majority vote: YES: Messrs. Kirk, Palumbo, Myers, McDonald, Stiles, Golladay, Brumback NO: Mr. DeHaven ABSTAIN: Mr. Romine The Winchester City Planning Commission next had further discussion and then voted on the rezoning request. For details on the City's discussion and vote, see Winchester City Planning Commission minutes of April 20, 1983. This concluded the joint public hearing for Rezoning Petition #005 -83 of Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester. REPORT FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Romine presented the revised priority list and recommendations. After some discussion of the projects and recommendations, Mr. Golladay moved to approve the revised project priority list and recommendations. This motion was seconded by Col. Myers and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve of the revised project priority list and recommendations for the annual review of Capital Improvement Plan projects. 1729 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Golladay moved to adjourn. This motion was seconded by Mr. McDonald and passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, i OFr6nk Brubiback, Chairman ( a, TP. I J n T. P. Horne, secretary 1730 PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION M I N U T E S The Winchester City Planning Commission and the Frederick County Planning Commission held a special joint public hearing on Wednesday, April 20, 1983 at 8:00 p.m. in the Frederick County Board of Supervisor's Meeting Room, Winchester, Virginia. Present: Casey, Griffin, Laidlaw, Scheder, Speakman, Seldon (Advisory) Absent: Duane, Shokes, Burkholder (Advisory) Visitors: See list in meeting file Frederick County Planning Commission Chairman Brumback opened the public hearing and welcomed members of the City Planning Commission. Chairman Brumback introduced members of the County Planning Commission, and Chairman Casey introduced the members of the City Planning Commission. Chairman Brumback outlined the procedure that would be followed for the public hear- ing. Mr. Horne, Frederick County Planning Director, presented the county staff comments on the Frederick County Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 005 -83 of Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester, Inc., P. 0. Box 3301, Winchester, Virginia, consisting of 15.59 acres now zoned R -3 (Residential, General) to be rezoned R -6 (Multi - Family). This property is designed as Parcel Number 63 on Tax Map Number 53 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Nester, City Planning Director, presented staff comments on Winchester Rezoning Case No. 83 -04, the request of Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester to rezone 11.36 acres east of Old Fort Road at the City Line from RS -1 (Single - Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); and to amend Article 13, Section 13 -1 -3, by the addition of "Nursing Homes and Rest Homes" as a permitted use in the PUD District; and to amend Section 13 -1 -5' to allow up to 15 dwelling units per gross acre. Frederick County Planning Commission Chairman Brumback opened the floor to comments pertaining to the Frederick County rezoning. Tucker White, a mem- ber of the Board of Directors of the Westminster /Canterbury /Winchester, spoke in favor of the proposal for the applicant. Gardner Van Scoyoc, a consultant to the applicant, reviewed the proposal for both Planning Commissions. He stated that this proposal would stand on its own, and explained the life care facility concept. He stated that this project would generate the equivalent of 134 full time jobs for the area. Ronald Crawford, architect for the proposal, reviewed the design, and stated that attention had been paid to the project's impact on adjoining neighbors. He said that retention ponds would be constructed for storm drainage, and that there would be no increase in the amount of run -off from the property. He went on to say that at peak periods, the project would generate no more P..:. 17 31 a _ I Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1983 Page 2 traffic than would be generated for 35 single family dwelling units. He said that primary access to the project would be from Route 522, and that the only access to Old Fort Road would be for emergency vehicles. Addi- tional details on the Frederick County portion of this public hearing can be found in the Frederick County Planning Commission minutes for this date. Frederick County Planning Commission Chairman Brumback turned over the meet- ing to City Planning Commission Chairman Casey. Chairman Casey asked for any comments in favor of the proposal. No one appeared to speak in favor. Chairman Casey then asked for comments in cpposition:to this request. M. Lee Boppe, 601 Old Fort Road, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Boppe stated that his property was approximately 200 feet from the boundary line of this project, and said he had several concerns about the rezoning. He said that he was concerned with the road at the end of Old Fort Road being used as a regular entrance to the project, and stated that the exist- ing residential street system was not conducive to providing access through this neighborhood. He said that it would be hard to screen 55 foot high buildings from the neighborhood, and asked the Commission how they would feel if one of these buildings was within 300 to 500 feet of your house. He expressed a concern with the breaking of the RS -1 zoning for the area, and said that all of Whittier Acres would be effected by this rezoning. Mr. Boppe said he checked the zoning before buying his property six years ago, and found that all the zoning was RS -1 Single - Family Residential. Mr. Boppe recommended that the project be relocated to another area of the City that would not effect existing single - family residential neighborhoods. He went on to say that if this was to be built on the Lawrence property, he would recommend that it be moved to another section of the property, but that if it was approved for the specific property under consideration, he would recommend that the Commission be sure to make Old Fort Road only an emergency entrance to the project, that careful attention be given to screening the adjacent residential areas, and that consideration be given to relocations of the building to other sections of the property. Joel Stowe, 206 Walker Street, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Stowe expressed concern with the proposed density of 300 apartments, and with the establishment of a nursing facility in the proposal. He expressed concerns about apartment buildings being adjacent to a single- .Family residential area, and stated the need recognized by the Comprehensive Plan to protect and enhance single - family residential values. Mr. Stowe objected to the pur- pose of the planned unit development concept, and noted that there would be sufficiently more population in this proposal than would be permitted under the existing zoning. Robert W. Lake, 610 old Fort Road, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that his was the nearest house to the proposed development. Mr. Lake said that he was concerned that if the zoning was approved, what would happen to other land undeveloped and adjacent to this area. He said that he was opposed on the basis of the size of the buildings. He stated again that he was opposed to all three of the proposed changes in the zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1983 Page 3 Elaine Uhren, 532 Marion Street, spoke in opposition. Mrs. Uhren stated that their property backs,up on the project, and that they would be very close to the development. She.said they now see a "wilderness" area in back of their property, and that if this was developed they would see a parking lot. She stated concern with the effect of the rezoning on the rest of the property, and also expressed concern with an increase in .traffic in the neighborhood. Hans VanPayr, 540 Marion Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal, and : objected to the closeness of the buildings to-his property and the fact that five story buildings were proposed. George Froom, 319 Walker Street, spoke in opposition to the request and stated concern with the breaking of the single- family residential zoning in this area. He said that if this was done, he felt that the end of Walker Street would go commercial. Thomas Gibbs, 528 Marion Street, spoke in opposition to.the request. He stated concern with possible traffic conflicts generated by this develop- ment. Frank Greer, 408 Marion Street, spoke in opposition to the request.. On question by Mr. Greer, Mr. Crawford, the project architect, explained ways of handling the emergency entrance from Old Fort Road, and stated that in general, facilities of this type are not fenced off from surrounding neigh- borhoods. Mr. Boppe stated that even if Old Fort Road is not to be used as an access road, the end of the road would only be about 150 feet from the nursing facility. He expressed concern that Old Fort Road might -be used as a park- ing lot for employees of that facility. He stated again that he made an investment when he bought his property based on the surrounding RS -1 Single Family Residential zoning, and stated that a change would "break a contract between himself and the City ". On question by Mr. Seldon, Mr. Crawford stated that he had no problems with any of the contingencies proposed by the City. On question by Dr. Laidlaw, Mr. Crawford explained types of screening that would be considered for the property. Hearing no other questions, Chairman Casey announced that the City portion of the public hearing was concluded, and turned the meeting back over to County.Planning Commission Chairman,Brumback. The County.Planning Commission proceeded to discuss this proposal, and voted to recommend approval of this request to the Frederick County Board of Super- visors, with a recommendation that a joint public hearing be held by the Board of Supervisors and Winchester City Council on this matter. Further details of the Frederick County action on this matter are'contained in the Frederick County Planni:ng.Commission minutes of this date. ra' 1733 Planning Commission Minutes April 20, 1983 Page 4 Chairman Brumback turned the meeting back over to City Planning Commission Chairman Casey. The Commission discussed this request at length. Mr. Nester said that the Planning Commission could recommend to City Council that the request be approved as proposed, recommend to City Council that the request be denied, or table the rezoning and instruct the applicant to make changes to the development plan, and vote on a recommendation at a later meeting. Mr. Crawford stated that they could determine the feasibility of changing build- ing locations within 30 days. Mr. Crawford said he felt it would be possi- bility to move the project 50 feet to the east, it may be possible to move it 75 feet to the east, but that moving it 100 feet to the east would be questionable. Mrs. Speakman moved to recommend to City Council that the project be approved, contingent upon it being moved at least 50 feet to the east. The motion was discussed, no second was made, and the motion was withdrawn by Mrs. Speakman. On motion by Mrs. Speakman, seconded by Dr. Laidlaw, action on this request was tabled, and it was recommended that the applicant investigate moving this project as far east as possible, and that this be resubmitted to the Planning Commission at its May 24, 1983 meeting. With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, sfd Reed T. Nester, Secretary City Planning Commission 1734