Loading...
PC 05-15-13 Meeting MinutesMEETING MIWTES" OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING` COMMISSION° COMMITTEE REPORTS., Economic Development Commission (EDC).,1= 5/10 /13 °Mtg: Commissioner Madagan reported. the -: DC had two 'discussi.00- items. He said the staff provided an update on, the pro - active marketing efforts over the previous 12 months,;: which has included' " the: staff attendi ng trade; shows, attending conferences for targeted :business sectors -arid cornbining those with marketing missions in the, conference locality. Commissioner Madagan said the staff'has also been - conducting email outreach to tenant agents; Going, forward, staff plans to do some. additional conferences - and trade shows on the west,coast with; the rational that -those attending events on' the east coast probably already have.a,presenceon the.east coast. Comm - issioner IVladagan stated the second item of b. urine " "ss covered was the results `of the VIP tours of Valley Health. Once again, -the ;tours were very, well received by the attendees and the staff He noted' the staff •was pleased with Valley HealtW's .organization and presentation of the tours. A couple: results of note: almost 100 % of the ;attendees, ,would recommend an ED,C -VIP business 'tour to . a, colleagues When the, attendees were surveyed about a business they 'would like to attend ,next year,, a':, large .percentage indicated they'would like to go, back ao:Valley Health because; it,:was so interesting, `he wanted to aearn;:more. Comprehensive Plans & Programs' Committee (CPPQ — 5113113 Mtg. ommissioner Mohn reported the. CPPC had ,a couple introductory items ;for' future , p rejects at the committee level. He said the CPPC considered two potential long- range planning exercises; one involved the Southern, Frederick Area and the, other; the 'Kernstown Area. Commissioner Mohn stated both of 'these were intended to fill :some, gaps between where the boundaries; existingIbrig- range ng- 1 committee, sdcover determined the d would moue forward with e plans. _At the. conclusion, of`the meeting; the - , Y y the Southern. Frederick Area., Plan;; therefore; beginning next- month, the CPPC will be workingkwith the staff'on that project-' City. of Winchester`Pl"anning Cornmi'ssion — 5 /21/1'3::Vpcoming Meeting Commissioner David, Smith;, the City Planning Commission `Liaison, reported the;. City. Planning Commission had a work session on Tuesday, May 14„ to go over some preliminary, however, the regularly "scheduled.rimeeting will beheld on Tuesday, May 21, 2013; Frederick County, Planning Commission Page 2973 Minutes of May 15; 2013': 3= Citizen Comments Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission's agenda. No one came forward to speak' and Chairman. Wilmot closed the Citizen comments portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #02 -13 of Fairfax Pike/VDOT Lane Commercial, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.61 acres from B1. (Neighborhood Business) District to B2 (.General'Business) District with proffers. The properties are located on the north side of Fairfax pike (Rt. 277), adjacent to VDOT Lane (Rt. 1018), approximately /2, mile east of h81 Exit 307. The properties are further identified, by P.I.N.s 86 -A -14 and 86 -A45 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael 'T. Ruddy, reported the B2 land use proposed in this' rezoning is generally consistent with the Route "277 Urban Center Plan and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.. He said the impacts associated with this request have generally been addressed by the applicant and the, adjacent properties have been considered in this rezoning application. With this rezoning, the applicant has proffered-to dedicate the necessary right -of way to enable the Route 277 improvement project to occur and has coordinated the access to, this development to further implement the Route 277 Plan: In addition, Mr. Ruddy noted the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution -in the: amount of $35,000 to assist.;in other transportation, improvements. Commissioner Unger, inquired if.the entrance at Route 277 will be right -out only. Mr. Ruddy replied yes; he said the .entrance proposed on Route 277 is a right -in, right -out only and splits the two properties for access back and forth. Mr. Ruddy said this design will assist-with the median treatment, proposed for Fairfax.Pike (Rt. 277). Commissioner Madagan asked if the staff had received any concerns from citizens. in the: area. Mr. Ruddy replied.no. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt; with Greenway Engineering, reported the applicant spent considerable time working with VDOT and the County's transportation planner; John Bishop. Mr. Wyatt said,Route 277 is a funded project to widen the corridor, although the project is at preliminary stages at this time. , He said VDOT encouraged the applicant not to seek a full- access entrance for the internal parcel, even though it would technically be land - locked. Mr. Wyatt said they worked with VDOT to develop a full access option off VDOT Lane -which would serve both properties; In return for that, VDOT gave the applicant an exception for the spacing requirement for the right -in, right -out entrance. Mr. Wyatt said the second transportation issue was the relocation of VDOT Lane when widening. of °Route° 277 occurs. Mr. Wyatt noted the applicant wanted to make sure the siding of his entrance was done so that it would not have to be ripped out when the improvement occurred; therefore, the entrance was moved.a little further back from the, corner clearance requirement: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2914 Minutes of May 15, 2013 4- Mr. Wyatt next spoke about the monetary proffer._ He recognized the County has wanted to move forward from the Renaissance Drive, Phase 1, which was recently completed, to the Phase 2, which gets Renaissance Drive across the railroad tracks to Shady Elm Road. He commented that the applicant/property, owner was the local match for the Phase 1 improvements. , Mr. Wyatt, realized the Phase 2 was a priority project for the County and is the reason it is targeted by the applicant. He suggested the possibility of having the applicant's monetary proffer available for a local match for a qualifying revenue sharing .project; therefore; if for any - reason, Renaissance Drive - does not materialize, the $35;000 is still available to the County for a local match for another qualifying revenue- sharing project.: Mr; Wyatt stated the applicant would be agreeable with amending this; section of the proffer before it goes to the Board of Supervisors, if the Planning Commission believes this would be appropriate. - Commissioner Madagan inquired if the relocation of VDOT Lane would occur regardless of this rezoning. Mr. Wyatt,replied yes. Mr. Wyatt said when VDOT does their widening project, there will be two travel lanes heading east and two travel lanes heading west, with a center median in some instances. Along with that, they want VDOT Lane to come around so it ties into a cross intersection with the entrance into the Food Lion Plaza. Commissioner Unger asked. if Mr. Wyatt anticipated this project site .developing before Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) is improved. Mr. Wyatt believed they would have the opportunity .for one of the., two lots to develop: He believed the construction for Fairfax Pike was at least two years away. Deputy Director - Transportation, John A. Bishop, pointed out that it will probably be IS months before. VDOT begins right -of -way acquisition and there are a considerable number of parcels along that corridor. This process, will take at least one year,. Mr. Bishop said it will probably be threeto fouryears before construction begins. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this rezoning application. The following person came forward to speak- Mr. Thomas D. Orndorff, an adjoining property owner, wanted to know, how this rezoning would impact his property. He also had questions on the scope of the proposed project and why the parcel needed to be rezoned. Mr: Wyatt stated the current zoning of' the parcel is B.1, which .is a neighborhood- . commercial district. Mr. Wyatt said this zoning district was created many years ago and is under- utilized; he said land uses along corridors such as this one desire, a B2 zoning, which is a general business district. Mr. Wyatt said the B2 zoning would promote the highest and best use of the property based, on the' County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wyatt said the proposed use would be some type of retail ,or food service or something' of that, nature. No one else was present to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed .the,-public comment portion of the hearing. No other issues were raised, by the Commission. Commissioner Madagan made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the understanding that before going to the Board of Supervisors, the language for the monetary proffered contribution of $35,000 will be amended from being specific to Renaissance Drive to being generalized Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2975 Minutes. of May 15, 20.11- 5 for a qualifying revenue project anywhere within the County. This motion "was. seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,and passed by. "a majority, vote; BE IT RES.OLUED,.the Frederick County Planning Commission_ does,'hereby recommend "approval of Rezoning #02 13 of Fairfax Pike'NDOT Lane Commercial, submitted by Greenway Engineering; to rezone 3.61 "acres from Al (Neighborhood Business) District to B2 (General Business) District with the understanding .that before'going -"to the, Board of, Supervisors, the language for the_ monetary proffered contribution of $3 =5,000 will be amended from tieing specific to Renaissance Drive to; bein. g .generalized for a qualifying ;revenue "project, anywhere within'the County. The majority votewa"s_as,follows:. YES' (TO APPROVE); Mohn, Dunlap, Triplett, Madagan, Oates; Manuel „Ambrogi, Unger - Wilmot NO: .Kenney = Note ” 'Coinmisstoners Thomas, Crockett, and Crosen were absent from the meeting,. )' P County -Draft U date ofthe.2013- 201:4' Frederick;Coun Primary ;and Interstate Road ImprovemenfPlans . The Primary and Interstate: Road Improvement Plans establish priorities 'for improyements to,the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick,County. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Planning Commission of Frederick County,'in,accordance with Section,33.1- 70.01 of'the Code of Virginia; will conduct ajoint public.. " hearing. The purpose ofth'isrpublic hearing is to receive public comment:on the proposed Six -Year r Plan for Seconda ry Roads for Fiscal Year 2014 Deputy Planning Director - Transportation; john A. Bishop; 'began his. °presentation with the Interstate Road Improvement Plan, which contains I-811, Frederick County's only,Iinterstate roadway:.. ". Mr. Bishop stated :the major upgrades to 141 sought by the County itvthe'previous several .years have stiff'. not.maferialized:, He said Priority ;A continues to be Exit 310, which has received significant funding from;the governor in recent .y" ears and the project is moving.forward; Priority B ,continues; to be the review; of the rei'ocation of Exit 307 at Route '277 and has 'study money in the Six Year Improvement Program;, and Priori tyC and.Priority D seek widening along I -;81 with,the focus between Exit 307 and.Exit 310 `as a" first-priority. In addition, the Plan acknowledges,thatI -81 "throughout the County is in :need of widening. Pro,gressing'to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop; said there are no major changes from. tte previous plan and Route 37 continues to, be the highest priority in the! County. Mr. Bishop described in detail the three planned phases of Route 37 for the-'Commission, He said Route 277 - East 'of Stephens City 'i's :the: second priority, and has funding; however, the funding addresses a ,small segment of the full : irprovements desired: The pr"oje t,scope runs from the interchange, at Exit 307 out to Warrior Drive with phasing improvements occurring between.. Mr Bishop, next described the' third priority, the South Frederick County Parkway, which would eventually connect t - a relocated. Exit .3 07 ' He noted this is a, long - range plan and. will eventually, "be "a, significantly `important roadway,:. 'He added improvements along Route l 1 North are needed, as -well as additional capacity for park and ride accommodations. - r Frederick County Planning: Commission Page 2976 Minutes of May 15,2b13"1 6- Regarding the; Secondary Road Improvement.Plan, Mr, Bishop, commented that although; it is.mtich, less dollars than th& Interstate Sand Primary Plans; it receives the most:attention in terms of calls received from, citizens and. for Board, members.' He said with the :recent adoption of the, new Transportation Bill, for the first time in a number of .years, there was funding to promote some roadways; from, the un- scheduled hard- surfacing list to the scheduled list. He said this triggered, an updating; of the., rankings of roadways on the list. Mr. Bishop spoke about all of the factors that go _,'into the County's scoring sheet to, decide which roadways are the most deservin g of improvements, He, explained that this however, a' new State re ulat' g ion was incorporated ;requiring roads on the ;plan ,to :meet a minimum ' kee - trip count: Consequently, even though a road ;scored high on the County's priority .list, staff had to26pmovingdownthelistuntilthey,came to one that rniet the minimum „200 -trip count. He, said all ofthe roads promofW, have_'been on the plan .for a signifcahi amoun "t of time, they .are all deserving, and the staff has questioned this much simpler rating put in place by the: State, over the ranking system the County; has,4put considerable time ,and effort into making. sure `it; is a good system for Frederick. County. Mr Bishop proceeded, to review them hard- surface road improvement projects. The ,first project; Woodside Road (RY.,.671), is 'a small segment. and is foreseen,to be privately 'funded through ia bond by Titan` Concrete. The ,projects added thisi year are Warm Springs Road, Woodside Road Wright Road, Carters; Lane, Pack Horse_ Road, and,Laurel Grove Road, are to be, implemented over the,course of six years. ' = o Regarding the Unscheduled List, Mr. Bishop' g g said there are 21 roads with updated = ranking. ,The only "exception is! Ridings Mill Road; which is one of the roadways previously, scheduled,:,., then dropped off the list; however, in the Board's point of view, it would be one of the first roads; to go back on 'the list from a fairness perspective. Unfortunately Ridings.Mill Road doem"i-meet the 20,0 -trip, threshold it's the only one of those projects that had previously dropped off the listeand was not able to go back.on ,first, as the Board had previously'instructed.. Mr. Bishop said he included within the Planning: Commission's agenda packet the Board's adopted, ranking system and policy. It -gives the Board the authority, if they disagree with how the-rankings turn out to promote whatever road they want. Mr. Bisho said he was oin tg seek ort '; g, d, P y Bishop's aid g pp at the State level for recognition of 'the. fact, that Frederick County has a.significant and thou htful Process for how it promotes, its roads:, Mr. Bishop stated this is a public hearing and the staff is s poking a recommendation from,: the Planning Commission to the Board of -Supervisors. He ,saidthe Transportation ,Committee reviewed. the road improven' nt,'- lans'at their meeting on. April 22 and has recommended'apprOVal, Chairman Wilmot inquired how, 'the new, State- requirements impact decisions in term§ of..` ; safety. Mr. Bishop said that, when roads with less. than200 trips must be ignored, an. argument can' be. made "that ,a;road is being,paved that is "less needy" ih,terms; of safety. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to: speak, regarding any -` - p _ hearing. < i the publicpementPlans. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wdmot closed t of the Road_ Im rov ' comment ortion of the. Commissioner Oates made ar motion to recommend approval' „of the road 'plans, because they were in, line with the 'Comprehensive Plan. Thismotion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett ,and ” unanimously passed. p _ Frederick County Planning Commission Eage,2977 Minutes of May -15, 20,13 7- BE IT RESOL`V.ED,, the Frederick County lannm Commission does hereb _ • ty g . y_recommend approval `of the- , 2013 -20 °14 update to the > Frederick County Interstate; Primary, and Secondary "Road Improvement Plans. The Interstate,. Primary and Secondary Road Improvement .Plans establish priorities for °improvements to' the road networks within,Frederick County. , Note " "Commissioners tCrockeft, Thomas; and, Crosen were; absent from the meeting:) INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION" ITEMS: . Discussion. of a ; Proposed :Amendment; to -the 'Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning. " Ordinance, regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density, :Table. These proposed, rev' isions would update th "e. TDR density rights table.. " P,lanner Candice E..Perkins reported that earlier this, ear a,number of "ch' angelSenior ; , were adopted to. the. RP (Residential ,Performance) District: One of the major changes was a revision to the maximum density allowed for residential development. :Ms. Perkins explained the current Transfer of- Development Rights (TDR) density table was based ,on, the previous RP Density table and, therefore,. needs to be updated .to_ reflect ,new requirements. In' addition to the ,ordinance being updated to Abe: consistent hRug chap a is to ensure the use of the TDR -' rea agbeneficialalotonforturedevelopmentinlieuofrezoning. Ms. Perkins said the TDRtable has been revised to follow the same format as the,adopted: RP Density - table. The .changes include: 1) Incorporating the RP density requirements. (based ;on "housing types and parcel si'ze); 2) Increasing the RP allowable density when using TDR's for a development; and 3) Increasing the RA (Rural Areas) permitted maximum density. using TDR's to be (consistent with, the,' maximum RP density using TDR'.s. Ms. Perkins noted, this was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review &' Regulations' Committee) at their meeting on April 25, 2013.. The DRRC was supportive of,;the proposed amendment being forwarded to the Planning Commission °-for discussion. - No issues or questions were ,raised: byCommissi -on members and: ,they believed ''the proposed amendment was ready to be°forwaeded to'the Board for their discussion.` r Discussion, of a Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, regarding'Temporary Family Health Care Structure Additions. This proposed revision.; would include standards for the "inclusion . of temporary family health , :care, structures MEDCottage)' as a, permitted use. Senior .- Planner;, Candice E'. Perkins-,,reported'. this. is: an amendment that has been on ;;,the - DRRC (Development Com iReview & Regulations m ttee) Work .Program for a, number years and" we are:` finally drafting; the ordinance and moving it forward. Ms. Perkins said it °is an amendment "to :include; MedCottages or "temporary family health care! structures in <tl e -Code of, Virginia. She said the proposal is F _ _ Frederick :County Planning Commission Page.2978 Minutes of May`15; 20131. 8 to allow MedCotta e as aa permitted use °'in some. of the residential districts, which 'is a requirement. in the - Code of Virginia, and would apply, to the RA (Rural .Areas), RP ;(Residential Performance),. R5 Residential Reereational),,.and R4 (Residen$ial Planned Community) Districts, in ;Frederick County: Ms Perkins' stated the ;Code of°Virginia requires localities to allow "temporary family health care, 'structures as a permitted accessory use in alt residential zoning districts where ,single-family g P supplementary, _ detached. dwellin units are permitted. She said. the .staff has drafted. a number, of .use: regulations that-regulate the, use in the previously- mentioned di`str`icts; she, added ahat;ihe,:supplemental re ulationsare.consistent with the State Code.; - 1VIs Pe "skins said this; was discussed, by the DRRC (Development Review'.-,& Regulations' Committee) at their meeting) on April 25, 2013 She said the 'DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendment Ibein& forwarded to the Planning 'Commission for discussion with minor changes, to the.. definition of caregiver :(to clarify that outside agencies may, provide care ;for a- person, residing 'm, a' temporary family: health care structure). No' issues or questions were raised by Commission members. and --;they- believe-d.. the proposed amendment was readyto be. forwarded to the'Board for their discussion-. OTHER x CANCELLATION OF THE PLANNING 'COMMISSION'S JUNE 5,1013 MEETING ` Chairman Wilmotannounced therevere no items or applications forahe Commission's"June 5,` M1Irn,eeting. A motion was made by Commissioner. Oates,. seconded by Commiss orer Manuel, `and unanimously passed to ;cancel the Planning, Commission's June 5,,20,13 meeting;..: -; , ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner, Oates and aecond. by Commssioner'1Vladagan,; the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. by a unanimous'vote Respectfully, submitted, e . Wilmot, Chairman Eri R. Lawrence; Secretary Frederick County Planning Coinmissiori -Page 2979' Minutes of May. 15', 2013: