Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_01-18-95_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 January 18, 1995. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman /Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee - 1/9/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS reviewed the new CIP submission by the School Board, which will come before the Planning Commission at this meeting. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CPPS also began discussions of the rural community centers. She said that they will start with Round Hill because of the sewer problems there. 3936 N Sanitation Authority - 1/18/95 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Parkins Mill sewage treatment plant expansion is progressing nicely because of the good weather. She said that construction on residential lots has been dropping and new sewer connections were down. Winchester City Planning Commission Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the Winchester City Planning Commission enforced, on the basis of complaint, a violation of the City's outdoor storage prohibition against Sheetz. He said that Sheetz came back with an amendment to the ordinance which would very narrowly allow any business in Winchester with a permanent canopy attached to their building to be able to sell products outside. He said that the City Planning Commission's action was to vote 6 -0 against the amendment, however, this will go to Council. Mr. DiBenedetto said that the other item considered was an amendment regarding nonconforming uses. Mr. DiBenedetto said that there is a 10% limitation on the amount a person can spend to repair and do renovations on nonconforming use structures. He said that the City Planning Commission has developed a mechanism to allow that to go up to 25 %, if the 10% creates a particular hardship. He said that this was passed 3 -2, but will need to go to Council. Mr. DiBenedetto said that this will make it easier to undertake some of the rezonings that are now being considered. He said that opposition usually has to do with restrictions placed on nonconforming properties. Mr. DiBenedetto said that Mr. James Barnett has completed his maximum allowable two terms on the Planning Commission. He said that Mr. William Bayliss has been elected as the new Planning Commission Chairman. He said that two other new members were appointed, Mr. George Ferguson and Mr. William Brown. Mr. DiBenedetto added that the City Planning Commission elected new liaisons and that he will be liaison to the County's Planning Commission for another year. DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Mr. Tierney said that the 1995 -96 Capital Improvements Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on January 4, 1995 and at that time, the School Board presented changes to their project requests. Mr. Tierney said that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee re- evaluated and finalized their recommendations for the 1995 -96 CIP at their 3937 3 meeting of January 9, 1995. He then reviewed the School Board changes with the Commission. Mr. Tierney said that in terms of how the School Board changes effect priorities, none of the other agency projects were changed. Mr. Morris asked if there was a time limitation on using the ISTEA grant money for the bicycle path. Mr. Watkins believed the funds needed to be expended within five years from the time a contract is executed with VDOT. Commissioners also had questions on why the new County Administration building was not listed on the plan. The staff said they would look into the matter, but felt that the funds may have been allocated last year and, therefore, the project would not be listed on this year's plan. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward. Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles presented information to the Commission that he compiled on elementary school enrollment figures, on recently built new schools and their capacities, and capacities and costs projected for the proposed new schools. Mr. Stiles had several concerns with the School Board's CIP proposal: according to his calculations, the elementary school enrollment figures for the last five years remained flat and do not justify building three new elementary schools for children that do not exist; he was concerned that when Indian Hollow, Middletown, and Armel schools were built, their design capacity was for 635 students, but the current capacity is now 550; he was opposed to closing the Gainesboro and Robinson schools when the parents, students, and children liked the schools and information has shown that Robinson is the top ranked school in Frederick County on standardized test scores; he was concerned about the debt service that the county was undertaking with the proposed new County Administration building and three new elementary schools and the resulting tax rates and operating costs; and, he was concerned that the $17 million cost to build three new schools may well lead to no school in the Clearbrook area for a number of years. Mr. Stiles requested the Planning Commission to return the School Board portion of the CIP back to the School Board and ask them to look at their proposal again. Mr. Michael Weber, a resident of Stonewall District, felt it was a mistake to convert the current administrative school building back into classrooms when the taxpayers paid to renovate that building into administrative offices. Mr. Weber felt the school administration building was very accessible where it was now located versus moving it to downtown Winchester. Mr. Weber said that he disagreed with the growth figures presented by Mr. Stiles and felt they were not up -to -date. He felt that the growth rate the county was experiencing would result in increased numbers of children and that the County was going to need new facilities. 3938 4 Mr. Weber said that he was in favor of building a new school in Stonewall, as opposed to renovating the old school. He said that according to the architect, if the school is renovated, it will last only another 15 years and then the problem will be back. He said that the facilities at Stonewall are archaic and do not meet the needs of students in our day and time. Mr. Weber felt that with the growth that is occurring on Route 7, there would definitely be a need for a new school in that location. Mr. Weber said he felt that the School Board made a wise decision by planning to build a new school on Route 7 and moving the students from Stonewall to Route 7 while the new Stonewall facility was being built. Mr. Weber felt the modular units the schools were using were in terrible condition and were not the answer to the problem. Mr. Weber added that a lot of the reduction in capacity that Mr. Stiles referred to was due to state mandates that the county needed to abide by. Mr. Richard Ruckman, a Stonewall District resident, stated that he was in favor of a new Stonewall elementary school. Mr. Ruckman said a study of the school was done by architects, Mills, Oliver & Webb and proposals were narrowed down to building a new school or renovating the existing one. He said that adding 20,000 additional square feet and renovating the existing school would cost just shy of $4 million and the cost for a new school would be $5.1 million. He said that many problems exist with the existing school, ranging from termite infestation to poor wiring, to handicapped accessibility problems, etc. Mr. Ruckman said that this information was presented to the School Board and the public and it was felt that it would be more cost effective in the long run to build a new school. Mr. Jack Drumheller, stated that he thought Mr. Stiles was attempting to oversimplify a situation that needs a lot of attention and is going to cost money. Mr. Drumheller said that new schools are needed at both Route 7 and Stonewall. He felt that the School Board has worked hard to develop this plan and he asked that the Planning Commission support the School Board's plan. Mr. Morris brought everyone's attention to the fact that the Commission is under a lot of pressure to rezone properties for business use all along the Route 11 corridor, in the area of the new Stonewall school. He said that the only reason some of these rezonings have not yet been done is that the sewer line has not yet been run to that point. Mr. Morris said that once this occurs, a tremendous amount of business growth will occur along that corridor. Mr. Morris asked those persons present if they had considered future impacts of business zoning on the proposed school. He said that the school may be located right in the middle of a prime industrial route with school buses competing with tractor trailers and other heavy equipment on Route 11. Mr. Sager commented that there seemed to be some apprehension concerning Stonewall school that the septic system would not support the number of seats proposed. Mr. Sager said that he did not want the septic issue to prevent the school from being built. He said that every effort needs to be made to make sure that a system can be developed that will support 550, even if it is one of the new aerobic systems. Mr. Sager said that it would not be cost 3939 A effective to build a school with less capacity than that. Mr. Watkins said that the Planning Commission recently sponsored a sewer study for the Clearbrook area and he felt a good recommendation would be that the School Board look at their options and particularly, look at some of the options recommended in the study, which did not involve running central sewer from the south. There next ensued a discussion among the Planning Commissioners and numerous issues were raised. One of the main issues discussed was the cost involved with the CIP, especially for School Board projects. They felt that the combined cost of the proposed new County Administration Building and the School Board projects were much higher than what the County could afford. Several points were made that: In two to three years, the debt service on the proposed projects will almost equal the capital expenditure and would result in a large real estate tax increase; that maybe development was not paying its way for public facilities and that the County may be allowing too much growth; there were concerns with the Kline renovation and that it may be less expensive not to move the School Board offices into town; and finally, the question of whether the Planning Commission should become involved in the "expense" of the CIP was also raised. While some of the Commissioners felt it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to be concerned with the "expense" of the CIP, others felt the Commission's role should be more from a conceptual point of view and that the financial aspects should be the Board of Supervisors' responsibility. A motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine to approve the Capital Improvements Plan. This motion was approved by majority vote, but with concerns to be forwarded to the Board. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby endorse the 1995 -1996 Capital Improvements Plan with reservations concerning the projected cost of the CIP and recommends that the Board of Supervisors thoroughly review the costs for the School Board proposals. The vote was as follows: YES (TO ENDORSE CIP): Thomas, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Stone NO: Shickle, Morris, Light 3940 INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH RALPH GREGORY REGARDING A B2 ZONED PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE l l SOUTH Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Ralph Gregory and his partners have a prospective purchaser for a lot near the rear (western portion) of their B2 business park which located on the west side of Route 11, just south of the Route 37 interchange. Mr. Tierney said that the surrounding property is all zoned B2, except to the west which remains RA. Mr. Tierney said that the prospective user requires B3 zoning and desires visibility from Route 11. He explained that if this parcel is rezoned to B3, a category "B" buffer would be required where the parcel adjoins B2 zoning. Mr. Tierney said that because the user wants to be visible from Route 11, they do not wish to put in a visual screen along the eastern edge of the site. He said that they could avoid this by placing a 200' distance buffer along the eastern side of the site, however, the owners feel this is excessive. Mr. Tierney said that the staff or Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the buffer requirements; however, there is the possibility of amending the ordinance, which would give the Planning Commission the leeway to reduce the buffer under certain circumstances. Mr. Ralph Gregory, the owner of the business park in question, said that he put in buffers and setbacks according to the Code, but because of the slope of his land, he was told that it did not meet the "intent" of the Code. Mr. Gregory said that he was not willing to give up 200' of property that he was being taxed on for a setback. Mr. Gregory said that this lot was within a designated business park and he felt there should be some flexibility. The Commission discussed the situation and felt that if granted, a reduction /waiver would have to be tied to a particular site plan, so that if another use came in, the reduction/ waiver would not transfer to the new use. They also felt that an amendment would have to involve the applicant submitting a proposal to modifying the screening that would be acceptable to the Commission. Members of the Commission felt that within an approved master development plan area, some flexibility on buffers and screening should be permitted. The Commission discussed sending this matter to the DR &RS; however, in the essence of time, Mr. Light moved that the Planning Commission grant the staff administrative authority to draft a proposed amendment to allow a buffer and screening reduction waiver which would be site plan controlled and to bring the proposal back before the Commission at their next meeting. This motion was seconded by Mr. Marker and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Shickle, Morris, Romine, Wilson, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Stone NO: Thomas, DeHaven 3941 N INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH MR. BRUCE WELCH REGARDING A PROPOSED VETERINARY HOSPITAL ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 647 Mr. Tierney said that Dr. Bruce Welch, DVM, was present to discuss the establishment of a veterinary hospital on the east side of Route 647. He said that the property where Dr. Welch would like to locate is currently zoned RP (Residential Performance), however, B2 (Business General) zoning would be required. He said that the parcel is surrounded on three sides by RP Zoning and B2 Zoning is across Aylor Road. Dr. Bruce Welch, DVM, came forward and described what he proposed for the property. Dr. Welch said that the property is located at 689 Aylor Road (Rt. 647) near Stephens City and has an existing 1 1/2 story dwelling. He stated that he wished to construct a single - story 50 -60' X 40 -50' animal hospital beside the existing house. Dr. Welch said that he had no intentions of offering boarding or kennel services and that he would be willing to offer proffers to prohibit objectionable uses. Mr. Sager said that he spoke with some of the neighbors and they felt it might be better to convert the existing house to the veterinary hospital rather than building a new structure. Mr. Sager said that he had no objections to a veterinary office at this location. He said the property is located on a busy road. Mr. Thomas pointed out that this property was very narrow and that if Dr. Welch built a house towards the rear of the property, it would be landlocked. Mr. Thomas felt that the proffers submitted should apply to the entire parcel, not just the part of the lot with the veterinary clinic. Mr. Morris said that he felt that veterinary offices could fit well into residential areas because they were a community - related, transitional -type business. No other outstanding areas of concern were raised by the Commissioners. No action was needed at this time. 3942 ADJOURNMENT No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, y� Charles S. DeHaven. Jr.. Chairman 3943