Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_04-17-02_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 17, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chaimian/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District, John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER 10 - Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 6, 2002 Upon motion made by Connnissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of March 6, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 05/08/02 Mtg. Conunissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed a request for the potential expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area on Rt. 277 for the Bowman property. Commissioner Light said that the CPPS recommended approval of the request. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 844 -2- • Transportation Committee Commissioner Kriz reported that he received a copy of a letter from Don Taylor, Chairman of the Frederick County Transportation Committee, that he wrote to Olivia Welch, the Staunton District Representative to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Commissioner Kriz read the first paragraph of the letter which basically stated that a polling of the five voting members of the Transportation Conmiittee resulted in four members voicing support of the Rt. 37 Eastern Bypass and one member abstained. Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 04/05/02 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that Mr. Patrick Barker has been selected as the new Economic Development Commission Director. Conmrissioner Thomas reported the following statistics that — were received at the EDC's meeting: 1992 -2000 median Frederick County income has increased about 25.1 %; the state -wide average is 26.9 %; Frederick County is, therefore, trailing below the state -wide average for median income during this period. Also, during this period, Frederick County has experienced a 30% decrease in inquiries for new businesses moving into the area; many of the inquiries received to -date have been seeking industrial lots with rail access and lots of 50 acres or greater. Conunissioner Thomas remarked that the County is very lacking in both of those categories. 13 City of Winchester Planning Commission Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, Chairman of the Citv of Winchester Planning Conmussion, reported that the Conunission reviewed one preliminary subdivision which raised issues concerning housing developments adjacent to Frederick County. Mr. DiBenedetto introduced several members of the Citv Planning Conunission who were in the audience, Vice Chairwoman Susan Masters, Mr. Phil Weber, and Mr. Nate Adams. PRESENTATION SAFER TRANSPORT AND ROADWAYS (STAR) SOLUTIONS PRESENTATION REGARDING PUBLIC- PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION ACT (PPTA) PROPOSAL FOR INTERSTATE 81 IMPROVEMENTS Director Evan A. Wyatt introduced Mr. Jimmy Mills, a representative of Wilber -Smith Associates, who is a part of the STAR (Safer Transport and Roadways) Solutions consortium, which is a group of engineers and transportation planners who are interested in conducting the 1 -81 widening project. 71 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 845 3- Director Wyatt explained that the STAR Solutions proposal is possible because of the Public - Private • Transportation Act (PPTA) that was enabled in 1995. Mr. Jimmy Mills of Wilber -Smith Associates, an international consulting fine, described his professional background for the Commission; he said that he has been in transportation about 39 years and has worked for VDOT for the last 37 1/2 years. Mr. Mills gave a slide presentation and explained that the conceptual plan for the I -81 widening includes: at least four lanes in each direction; separation of cars from trucks; begin construction one year after reaching a comprehensive agreement with VDOT; complete all 325 miles in 15 years; substantially funded by electronically - collected toll on trucks; and new facilities for trucks. Mr. Mills described who would comprise the STAR Solutions Team, including the project managers, the Virginia construction firms, the Virginia design and engineering firms, the financial team, and the legal, lobbying, and public relations team. He also described the financing plan and the development schedule. In addition, Mr. Mills explained the PPTA and the PPTA process. Mr. Mills next answered questions from the Planning Commission. One ofthe questions raised was how integral Rt. 37 was, in this particular area to the I -81 proposal. Mr. Mills replied that they are well aware that Rt. 37 could provide a great deal of relief for the Rt. 50 interchange with 1 -81 because of the way the traffic moves to the Rt. 50 interchange and then goes east. Mr. Mills believed Rt. 37 is an integral part of moving traffic through the Winchester area, it's an integral part of dealing with the problems at various interchanges within the Winchester area, and he believed it was a viable option and one the State should use. Along that same subject, a question was raised concerning how much right -of -way would be needed and Mr. Mills replied that if Rt. 37 is not an option, businesses will have to be bought in the area of the Rt. 50 interchange in order to make the project work. He explained that if Rt. 37 is a part of the project, traffic can be separated easier and can be moved through the area easier. ® Mr. Mills was also asked for reassurance that the STAR Solutions group would take into account some of the localities' adopted long -range transportation studies and plans while moving from the conceptual stage to the actual design phase. It was pointed out that the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) was developed over a seven -year period and adopted and would be important to be included early in the design process. Mr. Mills stated that once they are given the okay by VDOT to begin the detailed proposal, he would prefer to meet and work with all the localities to hear the concerns and long-range plans. Various questions were also raised concerning the Norfolk- Southem Rail Study, envirormiental impacts, such as noise and air pollution, construction effects on streams and groundwater, the public hearing process, costs, and timing. Copies of Mr. Mills' presentation were made available to all the Planning Commissioners. PUBLIC HEARINGS Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, Section 144 -9, General Procedure, and Section 144 -12, Subdivision design plan; a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article VI, Plan Requirements, Section 144 -36, Subdivision Design Plans; and a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Article XIX, Section 165 -144, Activities Requiring Site 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 846 -4- Plans, and Section 165 -145, Site Plan Applications; Review, and Section 165 -146, Site Plan Contents. • These amendments were designed to improve the site plan and subdivision design plan review process. Action - Reconunended Approval Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt commented that the staff had presented a summary of this proposed ordinance amendment to the Board of Supervisors under a discussion format. Director Wyatt said that the Board of Supervisors was comfortable with the concept, however, they wanted to have a discussion - opportunity with the full text amendment in front of them before they held a public hearing. He explained that this item is scheduled for the Board's discussion at their upcoming meeting on April 22, 2002. Plainer Jeremy F. Camp stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and staff proposed the amendments which are aimed at eliminating redundancy and improving the review process for site plans and subdivision design plans. Planner Camp said that the proposed amendments would also clarify some of the ambiguities that exist in the current text of the zoning ordinance, specifically regarding the information that is needed to be provided on each plan. He advised that the changes will assist the staff with the review process, as well as help engineers, land surveyors, and architects to prepare site plans and subdivision design plans more proficiently. Planner Camp briefly reviewed the changes, as the Commission had already reviewed and discussed the amendments on several occasions. Chainnan DeHaven called for public comments on this text amendment, however, no one came forward to speak. © Other than some procedural questions, members of the Commission had no outstanding concerns with the proposed amendments. Commission members believed the amendments were appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hcreby unanimously reconunend approval of the proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, Section 144 -9, General Procedure, and Section 144 -12, Subdivision Design Plan; the proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article VI, Plan Requirements, Section 144 -36, Subdivision Design Plans, and the proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Article XIX, Section 165 -144, Activities Requiring Site Plans, and Section 165- 145, Site Plan Applications; Review, and Section 165 -146, Site Plan Contents. These amendments were designed to improve the site plan and subdivision design plan review process. Proposed Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -27E, Parking Lots. The proposed amendment is intended to modify the requirements for drive -in lanes. Action - Recommended Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 847 5 Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt recalled for the Commission that this amendment was needed because the current requirements are vague. Director Wyatt said the current requirements specify a minimum drive -in lane width, but it does not state whether or not facilities are permitted within the stated width, such as raised islands for canopy supports, pru erratic tubes, ATM machines, etc. He stated that the amendment, which clarifies the requirements, was prepared with input from site design and architectural design professionals and has been discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). He added that both the Planting Conunission and the Board of Supervisors have also had the opportunity to discuss this amendment at previous meetings and to his knowledge, everyone seemed comfortable with the amendment. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak. No issues or questions were raised by the Conunission members. The Conunission believed the amendment as presented was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planting Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to the Code of Frederick County, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -27E, Parking Lots, to modify the requirements for Drive -In lanes. Proposed amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, ® Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -37E, Road Efficiency Buffers, and Article XXII, Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to modify the requirements for residential road efficiency buffers pertaining to their location and landscaping elements, and to provide for support definitions. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a proposal to modify the requirements for residential road efficiency buffers. He explained that a road efficiency buffer is intended to provide for a distance separation between residential land uses and higher road systems ranging from major collector to interstate systems. He said the road efficiency buffer requires a landscape element and in some instances, requires an opaque element. Director Wyatt explained that the current requirements for road efficiency buffers do not prohibit the buffer from being within a residential lot and do not allow the residential lot owner to make any use of the buffer area. Director Wyatt advised that the proposed amendments are intended to remove the inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer from the residential lot, to require the landscaping and opaque elements to be located outside of the residential lot, and to allow the property owner to place accessory structures within the active portion of the road efficiency buffer, if it is situated within the residential lot. Planning Director Wyatt continued, stating that the proposed road efficiency buffer amendments have been discussed by the DRRS, the Planting Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. He said that all bodies believed the proposed amendments were appropriate and felt the proposed amendments r] Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April IT 2002 Page 848 -6- should be advertised for a public hearing. • Commissioner Gochenour inquired about who was responsible for installing the buffer elements. Director Wyatt replied that the developer is responsible for the plan design and installing the elements; once the element is installed, it is within the homeowners associations' open space and once the homeowners association assumes responsibility ofthe open space, it is their responsibilityto maintain the area. He added that the site installation is bonded to insure completion. Commnissioner Straub inquired if Director Wyatt could give an example of an "active buffer." Director Wyatt explained that a buffer can be thought of as a distance; the distance is broken into two segments, an "inactive segment" and an "active segment." He said the "inactive segment" may include the edge of curb from the road, a grass and tree planted area, and a fence, .which are not within the residential lot. He said that once behind the fence, the "active segment" is within the residential lot itself and is owned by the homeowner. He stated that the distance from the road to the house remains the same. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No other issues or questions were raised and the Commission believed the amendment was appropriate as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously reconumend approval of the proposed amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations Section 165 -37E, Road Efficiency Buffers, and Article XXII, Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to modify the requirements for residential road efficiency buffers pertaining to their location and landscaping elements, and to provide for support definitions. Proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Rural Areas District, Section 165 -54B, Family Division Lots, and Article XXII, Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to identify qualifying immediate family members for family division lots and to provide for support definitions. Action Tabled for 60 Days Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that this item was taken back to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) again for additional discussion and clarification; therefore, this text amendment has not been through discussion at either the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors' level. Director Wyatt recommended tabling of the public hearing, but to go ahead and have the discussion by the Planning Commission under "Other" on the Commission's agenda. Chairman DeHaven asked if anyone in the audience had cometo speak regarding the proposed amendments. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 849 7- Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour, • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table the proposed amendments, intended to identify qualifying immediate family members for family division lots and to provide for support definitions, for 60 days. PUBLIC MEETING Waiver Request of Eastgate Commerce Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for an exception to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165 -31 (6) regarding steep slopes. The property is identified with P.I.N.s 76 -A -53, 76- A -53A, 76- A -53B, 76- A -53C, 76- A -53D, and 87 -5 -17 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that staff has received a request from G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Wright's Run L.P., the current owner of the Eastgate Conunerce Center. Deputy Director Lawrence said the request is to increase the steep slope disturbance on the southern portion of the Eastgate Commerce Center and would apply to the 235.75 -acre master planned project, zoned B2, B3, and M1. He explained that the applicant is requesting to be pennitted to disturb up to 50 percent of the steep slopes on this site in order to more fully develop the property for industrial use; this will result in the ® disturbance of approximately 3.32 acres of the 6.65 acres of steep slopes within the Eastgate Conunerce Center. He noted that a stream preservation easement will be established by the applicant along the property's southern boundary in an effort to preserve the function of the stream valley, if the waiver request is granted. Deputy Director Lawrence continued, stating that in the Year 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted an increase in woodlands disturbance for the Commerce Center enabling 55 percent of the woodlands to be disturbed. He said the plan was modified at that time to establish a protection casement for the existing woodlands along the property's southern boundaries. He noted that the applicant has stated that if the steep slope waiver is granted, this woodlands disturbance would be reduced to 53.6 percent. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. gave a brief history of this project and why this industrial site has come back to the Commission a number of times. He explained they are attempting to fine -tune the site in light of current economic development needs in order to make the site a better candidate to a larger group of prospective industries. Regarding the disturbmicc ofthe steep slopes, Mr. Maddox stated that this is basically a run-off area with an intermittent stream, which never becomes a perennial stream. Mr. Maddox said they have provided for the establishment of a buffer along the southern and western perimeter of the tract, essentially preserving the stream valley natural landscape while maintaining a buffer against the preservation area previously established in 2000. He indicated that development activity within the easement would be restrictive, although some utility installation may be required at some point in the future. The Planning Commissioners raised the issue of how the developer planned to mitigate sedimentation from the steep slope areas to make sure the sedimentation does not infiltrate the creeks. Mr. Maddox described the proposed storm water management which will utilize a pipe system and storm water 0 Frederick Comity Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 850 - 8 - management ponds. • Chairman DcHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak Mr. Bob Pownell, a resident of the Shawnee District, was concerned about sedimentation control and the affects the proposed disturbance would have on Wrights Run. Mr. Mike McMillan, a resident of the Opequon District, was concerned about risks associated with drainage from this site if steep slopes were disturbed. Mr. McMillan noted that there was sufficient acreage of vacant industrial land available for use in Frederick County and, therefore, he questioned the justification of disturbing steep slopes on this property because of the risks associated with drainage. Mr. Sam Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, questioned whether the land proposed as a trade -off is land that couldn't be developed anyway. Mr. Lehman believed the steel) slopes and woodlands should be protected. In light of the fact that this property has already been rezoned and master planned for industrial use and because the steep slopes proposed to be disturbed would not directly affect perennial streams, the Commissioners were generally in agreement that the disturbance request was appropriate. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Board ® of Supervisors that the request for a waiver to increase steep slope disturbance in the Eastgate Commerce Center be approved contingent upon the applicant providing a surveyed description of the "preservation area," to ensure that subsequent development plans do not encroach into this area. YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Kriz, Thomas, Morris, Unger Light, DcHaven NO: Gochcnour, Staub OTHER REOUEST FROM VICKI WEST FOR PRESENTATION ON WATER ISSUES Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that the Count• Administrators Office received a request on behalf of Ms. Vicki West, with a grass -roots group known as "Save the Water," for a 30- minute presentation to the Board of Supervisors regarding water issues. Director Wyatt said that since the previous forum by the Sanitation Authority and the Service Authority came before the Planning Conunission, the County Administrator believed it may be appropriate to follow suit with this group. The Planning Commission instructed the staff to schedule the group for the next available regular meeting night. LIjl Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 851 9- • Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Rural Areas District, Section 165 -54B, Family Division Lots, and Article XXII, Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to identify qualifying immediate family members for family division lots and to provide for support definitions. No Action Required Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that the proposed amendment is simply establishing a definition for what constitutes an 'immediate fannily' where one does not currently exist. Director Wyatt gave some history and background information concerning family- division lots. Commissioner Morris inquired if there was a minimum time requirement to maintain ownership before qualifying as a family subdivision. Director \V%Iatt replied that the State Code does not specify a time period that the receiver must hold the property. He said that the only stipulation is that you can only subdivide one time perqualifying family member. Director Wyatt explained that the Planning Department tracks this, and one part of the subdivision process for a family division lot is to require a signed affidavit by the owner of property identifying who the receiving person is. Commissioner Straub pointed out a minor typographical correction to the test. The Commission believed the amendment was appropriate as presented. Chairman DeHaven stated that the Planning Commission was ready for a public hearing on this matter. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER ROSENBERRY Commissioner Rosenbery read a statement he prepared in response to continents made by Commissioner Thomas at a previous Planning Commission meeting. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman DeHaven made the following committee appointments: Commissioner Gene Fisher and Commissioner Charles Triplett moved from their current appointments on the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) and appointed to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS); Commissioner Marie Straub appointed to the DRRS; Commissioner Pat Gochenour and Commissioner William Rosenberry to the CPPS. Chairman DeHaven also appointed Commissioner Pat Gochenour to serve as liaison to the Historic Resources Advisory Board. 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 852 -10- Chairman DeHaven reviewed the other previously -made appointments that would remain the same: Conunissioner Gene Fisher liaison to the Sanitation Authority; Conunissioner Roger Thomas liaison to the Economic Development Commission; Conunissioner George Kriz liaison tothe Transportation Conunittee; and Commissioner Rick Ours liaison to the Winchester City Planning Commission. LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO FORMER COMMISSIONER S. BLAINE WILSON Chairman DeHaven said that he prepared a letter of appreciation on behalf of the Commission to former Planning Conunissioner, S. Blaine Wilson, for his 16 years of service on the Commission. Chairman DeHaven said that anyone who was interested in signing the letter after the meeting was welcome to do so. JULY 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt suggested that the Commission leave the opportunity open, should the staff receive agenda items for consideration, and consider Monday, July 1, 2002 as the proposed meeting date. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to have their meeting on Monday, July 1, ® 2002, if there were agenda items to consider. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed. ADJOURNMENT unanimous vote. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. by Respectfully submitted, 1. Evan A. Wyatt, Secretar,v Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 2002 Page 853