Loading...
December 08, 2004 Work Session with Planning 214 A Worksession ofthe Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Frederick County Planning Staff was held on Wednesday, December 8, 2004, at 6:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, County Administrator's Office, Winchester, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shiekle; Vice-Chairman Barbara E. Van Osten; Gary W. Dove; Bill M. Ewing; Gene E. Fisher; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler. Chairman Shickle called the worksession to order. Administrator Riley advised that there were two proposed ordinanee amendments to be discussed: Reereational amenities and open spaee. Pipestem lots. (This provision has been through all of the committee processes and public hearings. The Board deferred action after its public hearing and directed staff to do more work on the amendment.) Planning Direetor. Lawrenee advised that staff had been approached by Greenway Engineering to consider clarifications or reductions in the required open space in larger residential mixed-use projeets. Following these discussions, an ordinance proposal was drafted to achieve their goals while providing additional recreational amenities to the future residents of the projeet. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, advised that these proposed reereational units would be in addition to what is currently required in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wyatt reviewed the current ordinance requirements and the proposed reereational amenity method, whieh reduces open space requirements in exehange for additional recreational amenities. The benefits of the recreational amenity option are: Provides design options and design flexibility. Provides opportunity for active recreational amenities in all subdivisions. Significantly increases reereational amenity value in subdivisions. More efficient use ofUDA land. Administrator Riley asked if the dedieated land is usable land. Direetor Lawrenee responded that the dedieated land eould be both usable and unusable. He went on to say that it was still unknown whether or not the County would get more usable open Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors W orksession with Planning Staff on 12/08/04 (Open Space Requirements in the Residential Performance District and Discussion of Pipestem Lots) 215 space. Director Lawrence concluded by saying that the homeowners association would have to maintain a development's recreational areas. Mr. Wyatt stated that this proposal does not allow the recreational units to exceed the cap established under the proffers. In response to questions about the value ofthe proposed recreation units, Director Lawrence stated that the amount was based upon the cost to install a "tot lot". It was not based upon the type or cost of the houses being built. Supervisor Forrester advised that she would like to see how Frederick County compares to the rest of the State in the cost of recreational units. Chairman Shickle asked if a change in a master development plan would kick in these provisions, should they become policy. Director Lawrence responded that it could be utilized on a master development plan. Assistant Administrator Ticrncy statcd that this policy could be structured so it would only be applicable to a rezoning. Director Lawrence advised that it could also be made a waiver request that would be considered by the Board of Superv.isors. Supervisor Fisher thought it was a good idea, but he believed the cost numbers to be low and he felt there was a need to tic down thc opcn space so it was not used for storm drainage, etc. Chairman Shickle stated that there was interest on the Board in pursuing this, but there wcrc also concerns in the recreational unit values and the calculation methodology. He concluded by saying that the issue was not dead, but felt it needed to be rcfined. Director Lawrence advised that staff would work the engineers and bring this item back to the Board to see if the concerns had been addressed. Vice-Chairman Van Osten and Supervisor Ewing stated that they could support this proposal if it was set up as a waiver request. The Board then discussed the pipestem lot proposal. Chairman Shickle advised that he did not have the problems he once had with this proposal. Supervisor Dove stated that he supported the proposal 100%. Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Staff on 12/08/04 (Open Space Requirements in the Residential Performance District and Discussion of Pipestem Lots) 216 Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering, reviewed the pipe stem proposal. He advised that only 5% of the lots in a development could be pipestem lots under this proposal. Mr. Smith went on to say that both VDOT and the Fire Marshal have reviewed the proposal and given their approval. A landscape requirement was also added to the proposal. Chairman Shickle asked ifthere was a minimum subdivision size for this requirement to apply. Mr. Smith responded no, as it is based on a percentage. Chairman Shickle advised that he had apprehension about the livability ofthe lots. He stated that he did not know, previously, how much work had gone into this proposal and that his primary reason for not voting for it was his belief that it had not been given due justice. He concluded by saying that he favored sending it forward for public hearing. After polling the Board, the consensus was to send this item forward for public hearing. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 P.M. , J~~1- Q 0 Q t ~ 0 6 ~-i Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ( h I I [ ,--{ 1.2.. J iYE,fTIb;. Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 30 Board of Supervisors Worksession with Planning Staff on 12/08/04 (Open Space Requirements in tbe Residential Performance District and Discussion of Pipestem Lots)