Loading...
PC_08-15-12_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF.THE: 'FREDERICKtOUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION the meeting'-was held. in the Board,Room, of 'the Frederick County Admini'gtraiion. Building, at 1'0,7 North Kent Street in Winchester; Virginia on August 15, 2012, PRESENT: ,June M. Wilmot,; Chaiftfid f% Member at Large-, Brian Madagan; Opequon District; Gary R., Oates, Stonewall D "istnct, J.= iStanley Crockett, Stonewall District; "Lawrence R. Ambrogi; Shawnee pisfri'ct -, H. Paige Manuelf, Shawnee District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles• E Triplett, Gainesboro ,District; Greg L. Unger, ,Back Creek District;. Kevin ,O. Cros6n, Back Creek District; :Steve Slaughter; City of Winchester Planning Corrimisson's Liaison; Ross P. ;S °picer, Frederick County Board. of�Supetrvisors' Liaison. and Roderick B. Williams,.Frederick County Attorney: ABSENT;: Roger L. 'Thomas;, Vice Chairman/ Opecquon District; Chri'stopher.. M'. Mohn; Red Bud District; and:Philip E. Lemieux, ;Red'Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence_, Planning Director; Michael T. `Ruddy; Deputy. Planning, Difector'- and Renee' S. Arlotta; :Cl`erk. " CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot, called ,the e meeting to: order at 7:00 p.nr.. ,A motion was: made by Commissioner Oates to adopt the agendas for this evenings meeting _as.,presented. This motion was seconded by Commission er'Triplett and ,unaiiimousty- passed. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded. by .Commissioner; Triplett;, the minutes,, of,July 1 8;. 20:12 were unanimously approved as .presented. _2_ COMMITTEE REPORT'S Economic Development Commission (EDQ — 8/03/12 Mtg. Commissioner Madagan reported a discussion on the EDC's 30`h anniversary. and aspects and methods were discussed' to both promote and celebrate this milestone: In addition, the EDC staff- - provided an update on the proactive business outreach. He, said three different methods of proactive marketing are being' pursued: attending expos, direct mail, and contacting tenant representatives and commercial real estate agents. Leads and contacts are monitored so at year- -end, it can be determined where the best return on investment will be and adjust efforts accordingly. Transportation Committee'— 7/23712' Mtg. Commissioner Oates ,reported the stop signs requested for Canter Estates were installed. He said there is a request for an additional sign which would increase the fine for speeding by $200. The Transportation Committee decided_ to see if the stop. signs were effective before they'went to the next step. City of Winchester City of Winchester Liaison, Commissioner Steve Slaughter, reported that the City Planning Commission considered a rezoning on the old Glaize & Brothers site; Valley Lumber, which is being prepared for redevelopment; and a conditional use permit is being considered for the expansion of the Winchester- Frederick- Clarke SPCA site. He said work is also being done on permitting "and ordinances to address temporary signs within the City. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot'ealled for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's.agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed;the citizen comments portion of the meeting. PUBLIC MEETING Master Development :Plan #04 -12 of Doonbeg, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to construct 24 single- family small lot homes. The property is located on the north side of.Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652), approximately '/4 mile, west of the Valley Pike (Rt. ,11 South) intersection. The property is further, identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -52A in the. Back Creek District.. Frederick. County Planning Commission Page 2887 °Minutes of August 15, 2012 . -3- Action — ;Recommended Approval of Three. Waivers Planning. Director, Eric R. Lawrence; reported this.Master Development. Plan (MDP)'is to develop. 4.67 acres off Apple Valley Road and has been zoned RP (Residential Performance) for the past 20+ years. He said there are no proffers on this property. Mr. Lawrence stated the applicant proposes to develop the property for 24 single - family small lots and the density is 5.14 units per acre. Mr. Lawrence, noted the Commission previously saw, this development at a work session back in. December of °2011. He said it wasn't presented as a MDP, `but as part of a low- impact design example for revising the ordinance to allow for more creative designs dealing with storm water management. Specifically, the Doonbeg LLC MOP seeks to construct aAevelopment with the following: a. private street system without curb. and gutter;- pervious brick paver sidewalk adjacent to the street; individual 'lots with small bioretention cells and rain barrels; large bioretention facilities within common open space areas; managed storm water quality and quantity discharge; and stor n. water quality, testing for use by the Public Works Department. Mr. Lawrence stated that three waivers are requested for this development from the Board of Supervisors and a recommendation from-the Planning Commission is sought. The waivers include:. 1) community center waiver; if granted, in- lieu -of a community center, the project would provide recreational amenities including walking trails; benches, and a community gathering area with fire pit; 2) inter- parcel connection waiver; if granted, this project would be'constructed with a private road and cul -de -sac, and not continue onto the adjacent easterly ,property; 3,)' curb and gutter waiver; cif granted, this project- would utilize and implement low- impact design standards, which includes environmentally friendly, storm water management techniques without the use of traditional curb and Elk gutter. Mr. Lawrence concluded his presentation by stating' that the Doonberg, LLC MOP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance if the waivers -are granted. He noted this MOP is presented to the Planning Commission as an informational item; the only action needed from the Commission is a recommendation on the requested waivers. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was present to represent "this MOP. Mr. Wyatt stated that beginning in 2014, Frederick County will 'be doing locally - managed storm water reporting to the State; and, as a result, the County is moving towards low .impact design standards.. He said the Public Works- Department was interested to see if there was an opportunity to monitor a. few projects, as they crafted their requirements for 201.4; this project seemed: to be a good fit for the model. Mr. Wyatt,said the applicant worked with the Public Works and Ordinance Committees, and the Board of Supervisors and .ultimately adopted a series of ordinance amendments which. set forth the opportunities to initiate low impact_. design. He said this was the basis for the waivers, requested for this project. Mr. Wyatt next-described each of the waivers and the reasons for requesting te waivers._ Mr. Wyatt described the proposed housing. He said the single- family homes will be two- bedroom rental units with a garage and five product designs will be offered. He showed two of the home designs on the overhead screen along with a general floor plan. Mr. Wyatt noted the homes will be marketed towards empty.nesters and as starter homes, but are not conducive to large families. H_ e said the maintenance package includes exterior maintenance of the property and units. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2888 Minutes of August 15, 2012 -4— Chairman:; Wilmot announced that this _MDP is; not ,a public hearing because the site! has • already been zoned; however, the Commission would welcome 'any citizen comments concerning this development. The following, citizen s-came forward to speak regarding this application: Mr. Charles Harless, 1..88 Apple Valley Road, was the adjoining property owner on the east side of the project's access road. 'Mr. 'Harless asked if the height of the proposed dwellings was consistent with the :surrounding tomes in 'the adjoining neighborhood. Mr. 'Harless said lie granted an easement -for construction of the driveway into this project with the: belief this was going to be an age restricted development. Mr. Harless proceeded to speak about the increase in traffic on Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652j and subsequent impacts. He was also concerned about the safety of school children waiting for buses at the entrance to this .development due to the amount, of traffic and the lack of site distance. Mr. William (Bill) McDonnell, 122 Plainfield. Drive;, inquired about the price range and size of the proposed homes and wliether ibis was, low - income housing:. Mr: McDonnell was concerned about having lots of children in the proposed: development; lie. commented about -the absence of'adequate play areas for children. He said the existing eight -foot; privacy., fence separating the project from Plainfield Heights, is in need, of repai_r,�aFnd /or replacement. Mr.; McDonnell had concerns about the adequacy of the storm Water management proposed for thesite and noted this area has, drainage -problems during heavy rains'. Mr. McDonnell said the 4residents of the Plainfield .Heights. subdivision consists largely of retired, senior citizens and :it is a. quiet neighborhood with iio crime. He said he and his neighbors do not want the�quality oflife they've become accustomed''to be' disrupted. Mr. Gregory `Herter, 190 Apple Valley Road, was the adjoining property owner on the west side of the project's access road, 'Mr. Herter was concerned that the developer did, not inform the adjoining property owners earlier with information about the project. He said lie did not have 'a sufficient. amount of time to learn the details of the project and how his property inay be affected. He submitted a list, of written questions to the Planning Commission. Mr..Herter was interested in having his driveway connect to the, project's access road.. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant is.w'illing;to.provide driveway access off the project's access road and lie will provide such narrative on the final plan., Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to respond to the questions and concerns raised by the citizens. Cominissioi er Unger made a motion to reconrniei d approval of the first waiver request; the elimination of the' community center and instead, the project would'. provide other recreational amenities which are supported by the Parks and Recreation Department. 'This motion was seconded by Corriinssioner`Crosen and unanimousl'y``passed. Chairman Wilmot next entertained a motion for the second waiver request. Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend approval of the waiver to `eliminate an inter = parcel road' connect'i "on on ,this property. This motion was seconded by Commissioner .Crosen and unanimously passed. Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend, approval of the third requested waiver, the elimination of curb and ,gutter. and instead, the project, would utilize and implement low - impact design standards. 'Thi's motion was seconded by Commissioner Crosen. and unanimously passed.. Frederick County" Planning Commission. Page 2889 Minutes- of'August 15, 201'2 -5— BE IT :RESOLVED,, that the ' Frederick. County Planning' Commission does. hereby unanimously recommend to the Board of .Supervisors the approval of'.MDP #04 -12 of Doonbeg, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to construct -24 'single- family small lot homes, with.,the applicant's request for three waivers, as follows: Wavier #1: Coniniunity Center Wuiver' (§ 165- 402.08.A..l of the Zoning Ordinance) In lieu of a community center, the project will. provide recreational amenities including walking trails; benches, and a community gathering area with fire pit. Waiver #2: Inter parcel Road Connection Waiver (§ 144- 17.B,.2.of the Subdivision Ordinance) This project will be constructed with ;a private road and cul -de -sac; and not continue onto the adjacent . easterly property-. Waiver 43: Curb & Gutter Waiver (§ 165- 202.03,A.14. of the Zoning Ordinance and § 144 -17L of the Subdivision Ordinance). This "project will utilize and implement low..= impact design standards, which include environmentally friendly storm water management techniques; without the use of traditional curb and gutter. (Note: Commissioners Mohn,, Lemieux, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Master Development Plan #0542 for Winchester -81,, LL'C, submitted b y Greenway Engineering, for coirnmereial uses.. This property` is located on the north side of Route 37, the east side of ,Route • 1 -1, and the west side of'I -81, in the northwest quadrant. of I 781, Ezif 313. The property, is further identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -10A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director,, Michael T. Ruddy, - .reported that the proposed master development plan .(MDP) is. to develop 23 acres, zoned :B3 (Industrial Transition), for commercial uses. y Mr; Rudd stated access to ,the site is pia an extension of existing Commonwealth Court (Rt. 1176). He noted a required, zoning .district buffer adjacent, to Route 11, across from residential land uses. With regards 'to right -of.- -way .and the 1-8 1. Improvement Project, �VDOT .is working to .address the .needs associated with the project and is comfortable that `the right -6f -way wil l. be obtained. Mr, Ruddy stated that this MDP is consistent' with the, "Comprehensive Plan and it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. He concluded by noting that" this MDP is presented. to the .Planning Commission •as, an informational Rem and- commentsfrom the Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Oates °referred to a comment' by Mr. Ruddy concerning the buffer for residential properties across Route 11, and =noted if is a fairly large right -of way between `the properties and questioned the appropriateness of 'requiring a buffer in that area. Commissioner Oates considered it:a waste of commercial property and inquired if it could possibly be reduced,.. He said there are four lanes of traffic and a median strip; lie didn't see how the `buffer could be protecting the housing.. Mr. Ruddy replied that; an adjacent property Ao the north provided a similar buffer and of course, there is a good corridor appearance buffer which extends along Route 1 l; in addition, south of Route 37 along the whole Kernstown- Commons* , there is a 50 -foot ,buffer with .landsca m and a bike path. Mr. Ruddy -said the P g corridor appearance component is an element of con 'sideration; along with the residential use'. Frederick' County Planning Commission Page 2890 ]Minutes of August 15, 2012 Q M. Commissioner Oates suggested that ;50 feet may be more ;reasonable;, ;since that is the setback for buildings off the road,; however this one is at 100 feet and seems excessive. Commissioner. Unger agreed with Commissioner Oates: on his recommendation., Commissioner Kenney .inquired if additional improvements needed 'to be -made to Commonwealth Court to handle the impact of the additional vehicular and truck traffic. Mr. Ruddy said that`VDOT's comments' recognized "there would be impacts on Route; 11, . Commonwealth Court; and ;adjacent roads. Mr. Ruddy said that -if improvements are needed to accommodate the additional traffic on those roads, VDOT -would certainly °call'for�those�atthe site development, stage'. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was fepresenting this application. Mr. Wyatt agreed the buffer appeared to be excessive in this case. 'He said if the staff is' willing to work with the property owner to reduce the buffer;' it would be appreciated. Mr. Wyatt addressed Commissioner Kenney's comment and stated when this proposal was' brought forward,: there was support from the. Planning Staff to extend Commonwealth Court and tie it across from the off-ramp of Route 37, similar to What was done on the Nerangis property. The developer, even though this was zoned and un= proffered, was willing to provide "de facto" proffers where, he would, construct the road, :relocate the traffic signal, widen the turn lanes, and attempt to direct the traffic. to whereat made the interstate more accessible. Mr. Wyatt said. from a local perspective, it made sense and was supported; unfortunately, they could not get there with VDOT. He, said as a result, they are at, Plan B, which is :simply the extension of Commonwealth Court ,into the applicant's - property. He said the round- about. keeps the volume of traffic free- flowing, so that is not an issue. He said if VDOT has a.concern, they will have to work to address it `because the road is. maximized between'the turn lanes, the pavement-, and ,the right -of -way width. In other Words,,. he said the applicant does -not Have; the right -of -way to do anything. Mr: Wyatt said that good planning would have approached this scenario.a little differently. Chainnan Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wanted to speak regarding this proposed MDP. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment, portion of the,meeting. Mr. Ruddy said.he would forward the comments from the.Planning Commission on to the Board of Supervisors: No formal action was needed by the Planning Commission. COMMISSION `DISCUSSION BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ADVANCEMENT STUDY (BDAS) REPORT RFCOMMFNDATION Planning '.Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported 'thatone , of the topics of discussion,at the Planning Commission's 2.012 Annual .Retreat, was implementing the Comprehensive- Plan through economic development. Mr. Lawrence said the importance of a 20 -30 year vision. plan was discussed to ensure there would be appropriate areas ,identified for industrial and business development., Mr. Lawrence said the BDAS (Business Development. Advancement Study) is the result of the Planning Commission's discussions. He, said the study group consisted of members, from, the Planning .Commission, the Board of Supervisors, the Frederick. County Sanitation Authority, and te Winchester- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2891 Minutes of August 15, 20,12 _7_ Frederic k.County Economic Development Commission. Mr: Lawrence "reported that on July 12, 20.12, the 'BDAS, Committee concluded their study and-endorsed their report. and recommendation, entitled, "A New-Strategy: Advancing theCom�rehensive Plan from Vision' toShovel- Ready.Business.Develonment Sites." Mr. Lawrence :explained that one of the first priority issues identified was that business development opportunities had been lost due to limited, readily - available business sites. He explained that potential business developers bypassed ,our. community because, there were. no "zoned" business .sites readily available with site access and existing water and sewer facilities. Likewise; it was learned from the .property owners that they were, hesitant to seek rezoning .without a pending.. buyer, .due to the cost of rezoning-and, associated costs of,increased real estate tax_ es; the loss of the land use assessment program, and the. cost of necessary transportation infrastructure. Mr. Lawrence said that. with the help of experts .in various ;fields; the..BDAS Committee conductedan analysis of needed' infrastructure, as well as projected cost.estimates„ and identified a list °of ,targeted businesses from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and specific targeted zoning districts. He;said the ,committee also conducted. scenarios, using cost estimates to serve designated business sites and analyzed projected business activity and associated revenues. Mr. Lawrence provided details of the infrastructure analysis and scenarios. for the Commission. He said . the. results showed that depending; on the in and land use, a net,positive could be realized within 7-to-12 .years. Mr. Lawrence said the committee next developed a ,program. proposal, consisting of business development initiatives, as well as incenfives for property owners. ` He talked about the various initiatives and incentives proposed with the Commission. Mr.. Lawrence concluded by stating the.BDAS Committee is hoping to see increased tax revenue and new job opportunities-for the community with this proposed program. Commissioner Crosen thought the study 'by the BDAS' Committee was well' put together;, howeveri -he believed the fast: track component would. need to be exceptional. Commissioner Crosen said that some property owners have, told him that it's such a slow process here that they probably would not pursue development in Frederick County. Commissioner Unger'said that-if a viable company did come; to Frederick County and if a place was' available to locate them, he -did not think the county could accommodate them because the county does not have an adequate water supply, source. ;Mr. Lawrence replied this issue is certainly recognized, but the county needs to continue to pursue water and sewer capacity and make sure it is ,available for the business °when theycome.into the community; Chairman. Wilmot added. that during meetings with the Sanitation Authority, Engineer - D recEor Uwe E. We ndel; P.E., continuallymked where it ^was intended for water and sewer facilities to be available. Mr Weindel had said this service could not .be,available in inimierous places all at once,and it must be within the capabilities of the Sanitation Authority. Chairman Wilmot said .the,best we can do is to; identify where• it; is =that those services have the largest chance of being successful to :incentivize business. -She saidthe>countywould put the,water in the -most effective; areas. Commissioner Oates' said that. the Director of `the Sanitation Authority, ,Mr. Weindel,. believed Frederick County,bad resources to, accommodate one additional water= :intensive industry, such as the existing Hood Dairy. Commissioner Oates. explained that by placing this program within__. the.,EDC.'s . (Economic Development;Commission) realm of bringing in targeted businesses; the county and EDC.has Frederick `Gounty.Planning Commission Page:;2892 Minutes of August 15, 20.12 MOM the ;ability riot to target businesses' it cannot serve. He said this would :be more of:hand- picking" targeted businesses. Regarding the- staff's- comment, of seeking infrastructure funding through Federal and State sources, Commissioner Kenney referred' to the term; "site shovel readiness;" and he noted that there were two different "philosophies ,on how =.to make that happen. Commissioner Kenney asked if the.county would be matching an initiative 'with the Federal go ernment.'s idea of "shovel ready." Mr. Lawrence ,replied thatwhen. the Federal. Government, said they were willing to fund "shovel ready" projects,, that meant they, were looking for engineered projects or pub lic'improvemenf plans, that did not have the dollars for construction, but the project had lbeen, through engineering. .Mr. Lawrence "said the county is a little different;from that because the. county's vision is that we want. it shovel ready for. business development, by :making sure the property is; properly zoned, and by making, sure there ,is "transportation, and water;and sewer :infrastructure, or the funding to start moving on getting those services and. infrastructure on'the ground, so that someone coming -into the community knows whether they:can, submit a..site plan today and be open in nine months or if they have to wait six months for the'eounty to catch up. Mr. Lawrence said the county's "shovel- ready is a little different from the. Federal Government, simply because our belief'is that, if we pick a site and we want to make sure it is accessible, we are going:after all of the funding and we will do the design and build the infrastructure. Commissioner Oates noted a "shovel ready example would Ibe say, 20 acres in the Stonewall. Industrial Park `and everything is there and we're ready for the site plan. As soon as the cu`sto'mer comes in the door, the site plan is - started and the. county would ,help get that site 'plan through quickly: He said it would still 'be dependent on the engineers to draw it up, but'basically, everything would be ready to start the job. Chairman Wilmot suggested that as the Commission goes'through this process, it may be •" .best'to ask ourselves "the question of why.we are doing this. She said''this has`io do with finances; not necessarily'land use. Chairman. Wilinot said it is to be able to generate the�revenue', so the county can, pay' for the services that' ourcitizens are 'looking for. Chairman Wilmot thanked all the members of the Cornmission and Supervisors for _,working 'on this study. Mr. Lawrence said he would forward the Commission's' comments on to the Board. ofSupervisors'. URBAN CENTER :REPORT Deputy Planning Director, Michael T:, Ruddy, reported that following the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan _and more recently, the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan, the' Urban Center Design Cabinet was formed in an effort to further implement the 2030 Comprehensive, Plan with regards to the identified urban centers. Mr., Ruddy said the, Urban Center Design. Cabinet was established to conduct :more detailed. land use studies for selected urban centers identified in the area plans. The urban. "centers identified are: Crosspointe, Greenwood; and Parkins Mill Urban Centers from the Senseny Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan; and Sherando from -the Routed 277 Study .Area -Plan: Mr, Ruddy ;stated the concepts for these particular areas from the Design Cabinet are not a mandate of any particular Frederick,County PlanningCommission. Page 2893 Minutes of'August .15, 2012' development plan or.program for those areas, but ate intended o facilitate continued discussion and to have the locations be all they can be by encouraging creativity and collaboration. Mr. Ruddy ;next addressed the question 'of, "What is .an Urban Center," and she talked .about the five ;attributes of an urban center identified by the Design Cabinet. Mr. Ruddy next reviewed the: maps depicting each of the designated urban centers 'and those maps- identified the main street areas, the high- density commercial, the high and medium density residential, and institutional. He described the particular distinctive attributes that.made each urban center an attractive destination. Mr. Ruddy said the narrative: accompanying each urban center map will Hopefully support. the vision for those areas and will support future planning resulting in, successful urban centers. He added that the .concepts are efficient, financially sound, and create a livable community. Chairman Wilmot introduced Mr.. John - Conrad; and thanked liim for his most ,capable leadership of the study.group. Mr. Conrad carne forward to address�,the Commission. Mr. Conrad stated that lie had numerous conversations with Chairman Wilmot and Mr. Ruddy prior to beginning the studies bee ause he did not want to force'a;particular design plan on anyone. He said he received assurances that this is solely suggestion. Mr. Conrad pointed "out this plan is something forthe future; possibly in the year N50; after the population More than doubles that of today. -He meritioned the need to identify a "hook," which is what will bring people to the urban centers, and it has to be education, employment, or municipal. He said the study ;group recognized that what seems to work best is when people can walk to work and this is the. reason people are. willing to be in a; tight compound like an urban.. center; they will have everything they need there.' ,He said that public transportation is needed; however," to accommodate ;these. things. Mr. Conrad said the excitement is that we are: thinking about these concepts today. He. said •i if we. "think about these things today, then it will happen. 'He applauded the -Planning; Commission for startingthis and he believed itwas a great idea. Chairman Wilmot agreed there must be a "'nark" ]fan area. is to become an urban center; she said it has to have some sense -,as to how it is to be developed, along with some time frames and logical: order. Mr. Ruddy said he would forward all of the comments to the -Board of Supervisors for their discussion. Frederick County Planning- Commission Minutes of August 15, 29 12 -10- OTHER • ADJOURNMENT No further business ,remained to be, discussed And upon motion 'by Commissioner Oates and second by Commissioner Crockett, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. �by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, J 'e -M Wilmot, Chairman fr-711, Lawrence, Secretary. Fredetick County Planning Commission P.agq,28,95 Minutes of August 15, 2012