Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_12-15-04_Meeting_Minutes • MEETING MINUTES 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 December 15, 2004. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District STAFF PRESENT: Eric it Lawrence, Planning Director; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Candice Mills, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of November 3, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of November 17, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 12/09/04 Mtg. Chairman DeHaven reported that the DRRS discussed a possible amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for waivers to the buffer distance requirements. • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1416 Minutes of December 15, 2004 • -2- • . Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 11/08/04 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is continuing with their work on the Rural Areas Study. He said the CPPS was presented with another option, known as the Ten - and -Five Option. Commissioner Light said that the staff will present a brief update at the end of the Planning Commission's meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Paula Corbett, a resident of the Red Bud District, was seeking the Commission's support for the construction of a regional aquatic center for Frederick County. Ms. Corbett spoke about how membership in the local high school swim teams has grown over the years and that swimming is a growing sport. She said that it is difficult to schedule pool practice time for members of the swim team and that the facilities are crowded. She believed a regional facility would benefit residents of the community and promote physical health and well-being. Ms. Teresa Crouse, a resident of the Gainesboro District, stated that she was a life -long swimmer, a parent of high- school swimmers, a current Virginia High School League Swim Official, and a past president of the Winchester Swim Team. Ms. Crouse believed our community needed a new pool. She agreed with the limitations mentioned by the previous speaker, Ms. Corbett, and noted that the Winchester pool is an aging facility. She said that more than half of the swimmers on the Winchester Swim Team are from Frederick • County. She pointed out there is not enough available time at the Sherando or Clearbrook pools for life guard classes or water safety instruction classes and students wishing to take these classes travel to Clarke County, Martinsburg, Leesburg, or Tysons Corner. Ms. Crouse said the Winchester Parks & Recreation Department has generously tried to accommodate County residents and swim teams; however, they have simply outgrown the facility. Ms. Crouse believed a modem facility was needed. She said that Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and Valley Health System have all expressed interest in a year-round aquatic facility. Ms. Crouse hoped there could be regional cooperation towards this common goal. Ms. Jocelyn Carver, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said she was a member of the James Wood High School Swim Team, the Winchester Swim Team, and the Clearbrook Swim Team. Ms. Carver said that members of her high school swim teams experience difficulty getting pool practice time. She was concerned about how future swim teams would be able to get enough practice time in order to compete. She added that swimming provides health benefits for all ages and everyone in the community. Ms. Stephanie Vaughn stated that she managed a new USA swimming team out of Strausburg at Signal Knob and she was a professor of aquatics and swimming at Lord Fairfax Community College. Ms. Vaughn said that she would also like to get behind an aquatic facility for Frederick County. Ms. Vaughn described the many programs available and the benefits of water activities. She said there are three high school teams that need a pool to practice in. Mr. Steve White, a resident of the Stonewall District, agreed with the benefits of swimming and . the need for a facility for the high school swim teams. In addition, he believed a regional swimming pool would be good for the local infrastructure and would be an attractive amenity for employees of new businesses coming into our area. • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1417 Minutes of December 15, 2004 -3- . PUBLIC MEETING Conditional Use Permit #24 -04 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a telecommunications facility. This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is located at 226 Stony Hill Road (Rt. 688) and is identified with P.I.N. 28 -A -165 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning Administrator Mark It Cheran reported that the proposed use is to replace a 125 -foot monopole telecommunications tower with a 199 -foot commercial telecommunications facility at 226 Stony Hill Road. Administrator Cheran stated that the applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities in the area and staff would concur that there are no existing facilities or appropriate structures available for collocation in this general area. He said that the applicant has also demonstrated there is a need for the infrastructure in this area of the County. Administrator Cheran added that a certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. Administrator Cheran concluded by saying that the staff believed the application had adequately addressed the requirements of Section 165 -48.6 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in that a need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County had been demonstrated. He next read • a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find the use to be appropriate. Ms. Paula Figgett with Shenandoah Mobile Company stated that Verizon is currently on the proposed site; however, Shenandoah Mobile Company sold their license to Verizon last year and will need two more carriers on that pole. She said that Cingular has made application to them and also, Shentel will be putting their digital system there. Ms. Figgett explained that both towers will be up at the same time for a short while because they are under a contractual obligation to Verizon not to shut them down. There were questions from the Commissioners about whether or not the tower would be lighted It was suggested that the applicant might be attempting to avoid the lighting requirement by erecting a 199 -foot tower, which was just below the FAA's (Federal Aviation Administration) 200 -foot mandate for lighting. A comment in the staff report from the Winchester Regional Airport indicated that the airport desired to see the 199 -foot tower marked, lighted, and maintained in accordance with the FAA regulations. Other Commissioners believed the topography of the area in question was such that it did not warrant the tower to be lighted. Ms. Figgett said that they are not required to submit to the FAA, if the tower is below 200 feet. She said that if Frederick County would like the tower to be lighted, they would certainly do so; however, the Commission should make the lighting a condition of their conditional use permit. The Chairman of the Regional Airport Authority, Mr. Charles L. Wilmot, Jr., came forward to help clarify the Winchester Regional Airport's position on the lighting issue. It was Mr. Wilmot's opinion that for safety reasons, a tower height of 199 feet was very close to the 200 -foot limit and he requested that lighting be placed on the tower. • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1418 Minutes of December 15, 2004 • —4— • Chairman DeHaven called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Kriz made a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as presented by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett. Subsequently, Commissioner Rosenberry moved to amend the motion to include a lighting requirement as requested by the Winchester Regional Airport. Commissioner Rosenberry's motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour. The amended motion failed, however, upon the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE WITH LIGHTING): Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven NO: Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Watt (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent) The Commission next voted on the original motion which was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by. Commissioner Triplett, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions as presented by the staff. This motion was passed by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED): Watt, Morris, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven NO: Straub, Gochenour (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent) BE IT RESOLVED,That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 424 -04 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a 199 -foot commercial telecommunications facility at 226 Stony Hill Road (Rt. 688), with the following conditions: 1. All Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve months of the approval of this conditional use permit, the conditional use permit will be deemed to be invalid. 6. The existing telecommunications tower must be removed 90 days after the start of construction of the new 199 -foot telecommunications facility. 7. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of • the base of the tower. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1419 Minutes of December 15, 2004 -5- • PUBLIC MEETING Waiver Request of Hilda Maye Meadows for an exception to the minimum entrance spacing requirements. This property is located on the north side of Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652), 0.25 miles west of Valley Pike (the Rt. 11 and Rt. 652 intersection), and is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -52A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Approved Planner Candice E. Mills reported that this application was a waiver request from Section 165 - 29A(6) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the reduction in the entrance spacing for new driveways on minor collector roads. Planner Mills explained that the request is to allow a new public road to be placed less than 70 feet from an existing residential driveway. She said that the MDP (master development plan) for Hilda Maye Meadows was recommended for approval by the Commission on November 17, 2004; however, the driveway spacing was overlooked. She noted that VDOT has already approved the road configuration Commission members noted that the most significant aspect of this was the safety concem and they asked the applicants if they believed it was a good idea from a traffic safety standpoint. Commission members pointed out that there would be elderly citizens coming out of an exit that would be a deceleration lane for vehicles turning into another entrance. Commissioners believed it created a conflict of traffic movement. Mr. Dennis Derflinger pointed out three access points for the proposed development. Mr. Derflinger said that he did not want to impinge on the property rights of the adjoining property owners, Mr. and • Mrs. Charles H. Harless, and likewise, he did not want to create a safety problem. Mr. John Erickson of Bowman Consulting, the design engineering company, said there were no available parcels along the existing road for purchase that would give them the 70 -foot spacing. He said it would require closing both entrances on the Harless's property. Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Ms. Barbara Van Osten, asked how far the proposed entrance was from Shady Elm Road; it was determined to be 250 feet away. Ms. Van Osten commented that she frequently travels through this area and traffic has become increasingly congested on this road. Mr. Darrell M. Grim, an adjoining property owner on the west side of Burlington Court, stated that his deed states that Burlington Court is a 60 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Grim believed the 60 feet should be ample room to take care of the number of houses proposed for this development. Mr. Charles H. Harless, adjoining property owner residing on the east side of Burlington Court, at 188 Apple Valley Road, stated that he and his wife, Helda L. Harless, were not present to speak against Mr. Derflinger's development, but wished to speak only regarding some pertinent safety issues. Mr. Harless shared some of his reasons why he did not want the west side of his circular driveway taken from use; he described his porch and a study area on that side of the house which his guests access. Mr. Harless believed his property would be impacted by the development of Hilda Maye Meadows and more directly by the construction of the state - maintained roadway leading from Apple Valley Road to Burlington Court. He said that he, along with some of his neighbors, initially understood that the development would be a retirement -type residential area. Subsequently, he heard the proposed structures were to be single- family residences and he became concemed • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1420 Minutes of December 15, 2004 -6- • about the safety issues. Mr. Har less was apprehensive about the increased number of vehicles going in and out of development each day, in addition to school buses and service vehicles. He said that vehicular traffic in the area from Apple Valley Road to the proposed development has increased tremendously over the past 12 to 24 months. He said that much of the traffic is tractor- trailer or industrial park - related, and through traffic from Rt. 11 to • Middle Road. Mr. Harless pointed out that 250 feet to the west of the proposed street entrance is the busy intersection of Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. He said that traffic from Shady Elm Road feeds into Apple Valley Road freely, with no stop sign. He said that approximately 200 feet to the west and opposite the proposed street is the General Electric employee entrance. Furthermore, to the east, at approximately 400 feet, is the crest of a hill and traffic exiting the proposed state - maintained new street will not see approaching traffic past the crest of the hill. Mr. Harless believed these concerns needed to be considered as the Commission examined the requested waiver. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Harless if he would have any objection to a "right -in- only" on the western portion of his drive. Mr. Harless replied that there is no deal that he would consider on either side of the driveway. Commissioner Light asked the staff what would happen to this application without the waiver. Planner Mills replied that the master development plan would not go to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman DeHaven added that the master development plan would not be in compliance wi th the ordinance. Commissioner Light asked the Commission's legal counsel if the County could be held negligent, if there is an accident here after the waiver and master development plan are approved. The Commission's legal counsel replied no, the County would not be held liable. Chairman DeHaven commented that his understanding is that the Harless family does not object • to the entrance, as long as it doesn't affect their ability to use their drive as it exists. A motion was made by Commissioner Rosenberry and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour to deny the requested waiver; however, this motion failed by the following vote: YES (TO DENY WAIVER): Rosenberry, Triplett, Light, Gochenour, Straub NO: Watt, Morris, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent.) Some commissioners voiced their view that although there were safety issues, the property has been granted an access easement and the property was a suitable location for development. A motion was next made by Commissioner Morris to approve the waiver request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE WAIVER): Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Morris, Watt NO: Rosenberry, Triplett, Light, Gochenour, Straub (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent.) Commissioner Thomas requested that the developer work with VDOT, the Harless family, and the surrounding community to try to come up with a safety system that makes this as safe an intersection as possible within limits. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1421 Minutes of December 15, 2004 -7— DISCUSSION • DISCUSSION OF THE 2005 -2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, stated that on November 8, 2004, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met with county department and agency representatives to discuss new project requests and project modification requests associated with the 2005 -2006 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). She said that after discussion, the CPPS agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planner Eddy stated that the CIP was being presented to the Planning Commission this evening as a discussion item prior to the document's advertisement for public hearing. Planner Eddy next summarized the 12 new capital projects for the Commission. Those projects included five new projects from the Frederick County Public Schools, four new projects from the Department of Parks and Recreation, two new projects from the Department of Public Works, and one new project from the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. In addition, Planner Eddy presented a map indicating specific or approximate locations for proposed CIP projects. Commissioner Thomas wanted to say for the record that he was in favor of an indoor swimming pool and he was in support of the citizens who spoke regarding that issue during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. Commissioner Thomas said that he has raised the issue of the County's need for an indoor swimming pool for the last ten -to- twelve years during the Commission's CIP discussion. Commissioner Thomas strongly encouraged the Board of Supervisors to consider the request from the citizenry that it's time to build an indoor swimming pool for Frederick County. He said that the County has three high schools that have to depend • on the City of Winchester for members of their varsity sports program to practice. Commissioner Straub concurred with Commissioner Thomas' statements. She noted that Frederick County students follow second to City students when it comes to scheduling practices and they usually received the least desirable time slots. Commissioner Straub supported the construction of an indoor pool for Frederick County residents. Commissioner Ours was also in support of the aquatic center and noted that one has been needed for a long time. He said there have been opportunities for partnerships that have gone by the wayside. Commissioner Ours supported construction through a partnership and believed an aquatic facility would benefit many people. Commissioner Morris said that as Frederick County grows in size and affluence, the demands for these types of Parks and Recreation and school facilities increases. Commissioner Morris stated that the Parks and Recreation staff was successful in convincing the CPPS that the pool was a financially- viable program which could pay for itself in a short time, in addition to providing the county with other economic benefits, such as business for hotels, motels, and food service establishments. Commissioner Morris believed the proposed CIP reflected the citizen's demand for quality of life facilities and the county needed to be responsive to that. Commissioner Light commented that the CIP process was changed in direction to promote multiple uses of the same facilities by various county agencies from schools to Parks and Recreation and from the Sheriff's Department to Emergency Services. Commissioner Light believed that when the County consolidates uses and consolidates the money to manage the uses, then the CIP becomes a better process and satisfies the Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1422 Minutes of December 15, 2004 -8 — • Commissioner Kriz supported Commissioner Ours suggestion of looking at partnerships, or other means of funding a county swimming pool, besides solely using County monies. He also believed that the CIP projects were in agreement with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Gochenour also voiced her support for an aquatic center; she said that not only would it be available for students, but it would also benefit the area's senior citizens as well. She also voiced her support for the sidewalk expansion project at the Handley Regional Library. In addition, Commissioner Gochenour requested some further explanation on the Regional Jail's project for the expansion of the correctional • facility for younger inmates. Regional Jail Administrator, Fred Hildebrand, was available to describe the Regional Jail's two proposed projects, a free- standing 200 -bed facility and an addition to the existing facility. Mr. Hildebrand said the two projects will supply a total of 300 additional beds. Chairman DeHaven confirmed a consensus of the Planning Commission's members that the proposed projects within the 2005 -2006 CIP were in complete conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. OTHER UPDATE ON DISCUSSIONS OF THE RURAL AREAS STUDY • Senior Planner Susan Eddy provided a brief update of the Rural Areas Study. She referred to a memo sent to all the Planning Commission members in the Rural Areas Study group, dated December 6, 2004, which included a copy of all the comments received at the six public meetings and the eight stake- holders meetings. Planner Eddy said that after reviewing all of the comments received, the members of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) were of the opinion that the proposals concerning green infrastructure, the rural economy, the rural community centers, and the relationship of the RA to the UDA did have broad community support. In addition, mandatory clustering, increasing the amount of open space to be set aside, decreasing the minimum lot size, and offering density bonuses were proposals for land development that also received strong community support. Planner Eddy reported that the CPPS believed, however, there was considerable opposition, particularly from the large landowners, to all three of the proposed density changes. Therefore, she said the subcommittee is no longer pursuing any of the three land development options that were presented at the public and stake- holder meetings. She said the CPPS is now working with the assumption that the density will remain at one dwelling per five acres. Planner Eddy reported that on December 13, 2004, the CPPS agreed in principle to proceed with pursuing a phasing proposal. She explained that with this type of approach, landowners would be able to develop their property by right, with a certain number of lots over a certain time period. She said the study group is currently considering ten units for each five -year period. Planner Eddy stated that if a landowner wanted to develop his site faster, a rezoning would be required. She noted that in any case, however, the density would remain at one dwelling for five acres. Planner Eddy continued, stating that a phasing plan, such as the one she outlined, would allow a farmer to sell lots to generate cash and would allow the County to plan for this by -right development. She pointed • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1423 Minutes of December 15, 2004 -9- out, however, that very large residential developments would have to go through a rezoning process and would be • expected to mitigate their impacts. She noted that the CPPS plans to forward a more thoroughly- crafted proposal early in 2005. She provided copies of the basic outline of CPPS discussions to date for the Commission. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, al A a Ch les S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman I Eric R wrence, Secretary • • Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1424 Minutes of December 15, 2004