Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_11-20-91_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on November 20, 1991. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Beverly Sherwood, Vice Chairman; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John Marker, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; Todd D. Shenk, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large; and Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison. Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator ABSENT: Carl M. McDonald, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Sherwood, the minutes of October 16, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. CIP Committee - 11/19/91 Mte_ Chairman Golladay said that the CIP met on November 19 with the School Board to discuss capital improvement projects. 3422 4 Sanitation Authority - 11/11/91 Mtg Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Authority is encountering some problems over the expansion of Parkins Mill to incorporate Stephens City. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Preliminary Master Development Plan #005 -91 of Henry Business Park for business uses on 29.8642 acres in the Stonewall District. Action - Approved Mr. Kim Henry, the owner, said that the average density is 1.6 lots per acre with an average lot size of 20,387 square feet. Mr. Henry said that he was proposing shared entrances on Baker- Knight Street, due to the number of lots located there, and he will indicate those entrances on the plan. Mr. Henry indicated that the northeast corner of the property would be used for stormwater management. Mr. Tierney said that staff recommendations were for approval, contingent upon the applicant making the necessary additions listed in the staffs report, as well as addressing all the review agencies' comments. Mr. Thomas asked whether certain lots on the plan were buildable, particularly due to the large amount of fill that would be needed. Mr. Thomas felt that a stormwater management plan was needed. The staff responded that it was not a requirement for lots to be indicated on a preliminary master development plan and there was no guarantee that the lots shown would be approved during subdivision. Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Preliminary Master Development Plan #005 -91 of Henry Business Park for business use on 29.8642 acres contingent upon the applicant making the necessary additions listed in the staff report to the plan, as well as addressing all review agency concerns. This property is located at the intersection of Baker Lane and Fort Collier Road in the Stonewall District and is identified as GPIN 570000A000097F and 570000A000097L. Discussion on the Development of a Methodology and a Computer Model for Frederick 3423 3 County Which Measures the Impact of Rezonings on the Costs of Capital Facilities. Action - Worksession Scheduled for 12/18/91 Mr. Watkins said that the firm of Hammer, Siler, George Associates had completed the development of a methodology and computer model for Frederick County which measured the impact of rezonings on the costs of capital facilities. Mr. Watkins said that it was the opinion of the staff that the adopted policies in the Comprehensive Plan provided the County with the latitude to deny rezonings if sufficient facilities were not provided to support development or if were are demonstrated negative impacts on the costs of public facilities and those impacts were not adequately addressed. Mr. Watkins said that the computer model allows the staff to measure facility cost impacts on the county budget for schools, parks and fire and rescue facilities by using units of demand, which have been derived from various sources, including school children per dwelling, fire calls per square feet of building, or residents per dwelling. Mr. Watkins said that the model can then be used by the applicants as a basis for developing proffer packages. Mr. Stiles raised a point concerning school costs. He said that if the model considered one school age child per household, it should take into account that after a certain number of school years, that child would leave a vacancy for another school -age child. Mr. Stiles also felt that timing was critical with cash proffers. He felt that you could not force developers to pay cash proffers up front when the timing of the development might be five to ten years. He felt there were several other areas that needed to be studied; for example, he thought the dollar figure projected by the model per household was too high. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to schedule the Planning Commission's December 18th meeting as a worksession with the Board of Supervisors to discuss the development impact model. CANCELLATION OF THE JANUARY 199 REGULAR MEETING OF THE T PLANNING COMMISSION The Commission unanimously agreed to cancel their January 1, 1992 regular meeting. The Commission agreed to hold a public hearing at their January 15, 1992 meeting. AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE AS THEY RELATE TO LAND DIVISION OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA 3424 H Action - Approved Mr. Tierney stated that as a result of the Planning Commission's public hearing on November 7, 1991, a number of revisions were sent to the Rural Issues Committee for consideration. He said that the Rural Issues Committee met on November 12, 1991 and agreed to all but one of the requested modifications. The one modification that was not agreed to was the suggested reduction in the setback requirements for residential lots adjoining agricultural operations. However, the provision requiring a fence at the perimeter of residential subdivisions adjoining agricultural operations was eliminated. Mr. Tierney stated that the change which resulted in the greatest amount of deliberation was the inclusion of standard five -acre lot subdivisions as an option to the proposed preservation lots with required 40% parcel. He said that after much discussion, this change was reluctantly agreed to by a majority of the Committee members, provided that significantly improved road standards also be applied to these subdivisions. The staff noted the following changes made by the Subcommittee: 1) Section 4 -4- 1, which would have reduced the density on certain parcels due to steep slopes or other environmental areas making up the parcel was deleted; 2) The restriction on future subdivision of the 40% parcel was lowered from 25 years to ten years and tied specifically to a rezoning of the parcel; 3) The suggested reduction to setbacks from agricultural and orchard operations was not reduced; 4) A number of changes were made to Section 4 -7 to accommodate five -acre lot subdivisions as an option and to require the same setbacks for these subdivisions as would be required to two -acre lots; 5) Section 4 -6 -1 was altered to allow for the creation of five -acre lots on any parcel as opposed to only those under 20 acres in size; 6) Section 4 -7 -1.5 requiring a perimeter fence was removed; 7) Section 4 -8, dealing with required lot frontage, was changed to a required lot width at setback and was reduced by 200 feet for family divisions. A maximum lot depth of four times the width was also added. Staff also noted numerous changes that were made to Section 4 -16, as follows: 1) Family divisions and agricultural lots would be permitted on shared private driveways and would not count toward the three -lot limit allowed prior to the requirement for state - maintained roads; 2) Curb and gutter and underground utilities were added to the list of items which would not be required in rural subdivisions; 3) Language was added that would allow the Planning Commission to permit the extension of private roads in situations where no other means of access exists. These roads would have to be built to the same standards as state roads with the exception of the surface treatment; 4) Five -acre divisions would have to be served by the equivalent of a state - maintained road except for the surface treatment; 5) The minimum spacing requirement for driveways was eliminated; and 6) The interval for topographic contours, required by section 5 -2 -9 on sketch plans, was increased from five feet to ten feet. Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following people came forward: 3425 s E Mr. Fred Harper, a developer in the western part of the county, felt that the five - acre divisions should be an option to the two -acre, 40% parcel divisions; he was against the requirement for state - standard roads for five -acre subdivisions - -he felt that the cost of building the road would make the lots unaffordable; and he felt that the 500' frontage was excessive for any lot, especially in the rural areas. Mr. Harper said that he didn't think he could afford to develop in Frederick County if he had to build state - standard roads for five -acre subdivisions. Mr. David Nichols felt that the county had moved away from the goals originally set by the Rural Issues Subcommittee in preserving the rural nature of the county. He felt that what was best for Frederick County should be put first, not what was best for politics and developers. Ms. Barbara Thomas proposed that the 40% parcel be permanently set in easement in order to protect the rural character of the county. Several areas of concern were raised by the Commissioners. One of the major concerns was the proposed requirement for roads to be built to state standards for five -acre lot divisions. It was felt that if state roads were not required, there would not be the incentive to cluster and create open space. Others felt that the cost for building such roads would be too high. Another major area of discussion was the future division of the 40% parcel and opinions ranged from either tying it to a rezoning or setting a time limit from ten to 25 years. The 500' lot width was also deliberated. Several Commissioners did not feel comfortable making changes to the proposal without allowing the Subcommittee adequate time for further study. Overall, however, the Commissioners felt that the proposed ordinance met the original intent to preserve open space in Frederick County while at the same time, maintaining the rights of property owners. A motion was made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. DeHaven to table the amendments and send them back to the Subcommittee for further study. This motion failed by the following vote: YES (TO TABLE): Wilson, DeHaven NO. Marker, Copenhaver, Sherwood, Golladay, Thomas, Shenk Mr. Marker moved for the adoption of the Rural Areas Ordinance as proposed with the changes recommended by the Subcommittee. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver. Mr. Thomas proposed an amendment to the motion, that on Page 7, under Paragraph 4- 16 -2.1, Access, the third sentence, "Those subdivisions containing lots described by Sections 4 -6 -1, Traditional Lots, shall have roads constructed to state standards with the exception of their surface treatment. " should be deleted. This was seconded by Mr. Marker and approved by the following majority vote: 3426 C YES (TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT): Shenk, Thomas, Wilson, Sherwood, Copenhaver, Marker, Golladay NO: DeHaven No further amendments were presented. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend the adoption of the Rural Areas Land Use Regulations. The vote on the ordinance adoption was as follows: YES (APPROVE AS AMENDED): Thomas, Wilson, Sherwood, Copenhaver, Marker, Golladay NO: DeHaven ABSTAIN: Shenk ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secre ry �L/"Z /,Y / Jar#es W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman 3427