Loading...
PC 11-18-15 Meeting MinutesMEETING 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 November 18, 2015 PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director Transportation; and Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the November 18, 2015 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Planning Commission adopted the minutes of their October 21, 2015 meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3283 Minutes of November 18, 2015 COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee — Mtg. 11/09/i5 Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy reported the committee met and continued discussion and review of key sections of the Plan. City of Winchester Planning Commission — Mtg. 11/17/15 Commissioner Fieo reported a Public Hearing was held regarding a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for Verizon at 385 Battle Drive, this was recommended for approval. He concluded an ordinance to rezone 55.8 acres containing 110 parcels was discussed. This will be named the Millwood Avenue Enhancement District. Board of Supervisors Report — Mtg. 11/12/15 Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported the Board reviewed numerous items pertaining to the Planning Commission. They items that were addressed were: REZ #09- 15 Artillery Business Center, the applicant requested postponement until December 9, 2015; CUP #03-15 Gary Rogers Arghyris, this was approved; REZ #07-15 Woodside Land Company, LLC, this was postponed until December 9, 2015; REZ #08-15 McCann Office Park, this was approved; Ordinance Amendment for Self -Storage Facilities, this was not approved; Ordinance Amendment to zoning, this was approved; Ordinance Amendment to setbacks within Agricultural and Forestal Districts, this was approved; the inclusion of 35 parcels to Agricultural and Forestal Districts was approved. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission's agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #10-15 Heritage Commons, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to rezone 96.28+/- acres from B2 (Business General) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, 54+/- acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District and .31+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with proffers. The properties are located west of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Airport Road (Route 645) and are identified by the Property Identification Numbers 63 -A -150,64-A-10, and 64-A-12 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3284 Minutes of November 18, 2015 Action — Recommend Approval with Modifications Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy reported the applicant is attempting to rezone 150 acres to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. He continued this application is substantially different from the previous application submitted over the past year. Mr. Ruddy reported the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District enables a mix of uses, but more importantly enables the Applicant to modify the ordinance, tailoring it to the envisioned development. He noted the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District seeks to enable innovative design. Mr. Ruddy continued it is stated in the intent of the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, "special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary facilities, roads, and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development" Mr. Ruddy reported the Applicant has included 12 zoning ordinance modifications within the modification document for this rezoning request, a land use matrix table to clarify the balance of land uses, and a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) map that illustrates the land bays. Mr. Ruddy reported in addition the Applicant has proffered: capital facility impacts; transportation improvements; recreational amenities; phasing. He continued by emphasizing issues identified by Staff that should be addressed by the Applicant: land use; fiscal impacts; transportation. Deputy Director Transportation, John A. Bishop reported from a transportation perspective there are five key components to this request: $1 million cash proffer; Warrior Drive; Airport Road; I-81 Bridge; Tevis Street. Mr. Bishop presented a brief summary of the components. He explained what is currently on the books address each of these components. Mr. Bishop continued the proposal brought forth by the Applicant at this time does not address all components. He explained the proposal does not include the $1 million cash proffer and offers the right-of-way only for Warrior Drive and Tevis Street. Mr. Bishop reported there is $8.7 million in state revenue sharing funds and the funds are still available. He reiterated Warrior Drive and Tevis Street extension construction are items that are remaining to be addressed. Mr. Bishop discussed the transportation credits: the Comprehensive Plan calls for two lanes vs. four lanes which are being proffered; revenue sharing funds are in place; impacts being offset in excess of what is required. Mr. Ruddy noted the land uses shown with this rezoning application are not wholly consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He concluded the application does not adequately address the negative impacts associated with this request; in particular the negative transportation and fiscal impacts. Commissioner Thomas inquired of Mr. Bishop as to if the transportation credits have been reviewed and are they consistent. Mr. Bishop responded he has reviewed the credits and considers them to be on the high end when considering revenue sharing factors. Commissioner Thomas commented regarding Warrior Drive, going south, what would be the timeframe for completion to its location now. Mr. Bishop noted that would be too difficult to estimate without knowing what the other landowners may or may not do. Commissioner Thomas commented having the right-of-way for Warrior Drive may be a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Unger inquired if the I-81 Bridge would be two or four lanes. Mr. Bishop noted it will be four lanes. Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering came forward representing the Applicant. Mr. Wyatt commented there are three general matters needing consideration with this application. He continued the first being the land use conformity to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the applicant is in Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3285 Minutes of November 18, 2015 agreement with Staff that the commercial and higher density residential uses are supported in this general area of the County. Mr. Wyatt explained the Applicant is attempting to take what used to be isolated residential and try to blend and mix into this part of the community. He noted the other difference with this potential land use program is the ability to utilize structures that could be both residential and commercial. Mr. Wyatt reported what the Applicant is attempting to do is to provide the local funding match which is inclusive of the 1-81 Bridge, a dual lane round about, and a four lane section of roadway; this will allow traffic to move through from South Pleasant Valley Road to 522. Mr. Wyatt noted one item appears to be getting lost in the shuffle because their proffer does commit to a local funding match and it does commit the developers to execute a revenue sharing agreement within 30 days of the final non appealable rezoning. He feels what is not being mentioned is they are doing a cash outlay in the area of $5 million dollars based on the County consulted engineer estimate on a 30 percent design. Mr. Wyatt explained the Applicant is being asked to put the entire dollar amount on the table on day one before they are entitled to any development and he feels this commitment needs to be considered. In regards to Warrior Drive, Mr. Wyatt noted there has been discussion and he agrees with Mr. Bishop that it is very difficult to place a timeframe on construction of the road. He noted there is a proffer commitment for the Village at Artrip which has not been started and most likely will have to go through the motions again before it can be. When reviewing this the applicant recognized the most feasible solution at this time is to provide the right-of-way for the Warrior Drive section and then limit development opportunity in Land Bay 3 until they have the opportunity to find a large enough user. Mr. Wyatt noted the third issue raised by Staff is the identification of fiscal credits. He verified they will be proffering 50,000 square feet of commercial by the 300th building permit for residential use and another 57,500 square feet by the 600th building permit; this means before the project gets to residential build out there will be 107,500 square feet of commercial that will be delivered on the project site. Mr. Wyatt noted County numbers and values were used to demonstrate their point. Mr. Wyatt continued by presenting an overview of what the Applicant is attempting to do. Mr. Wyatt reiterated the project is providing three distinct land bays, mixed uses, limiting residential to 645, proffering a phasing plan for the residential, providing commercial development, providing disclosures for the residential to identify the airport proximity, recreational amenities package, providing school escrow account that is being held by the County. Mr. Wyatt noted with the $3,000 per student escrow account for 0-50 students it is reflected there would not be a payment, this is inaccurate. He explained the way the proffer is written it goes through the development program and does not have to wait until the 50 student trigger before payment. Mr. Wyatt referred to Land Bay 3 and two small properties adjacent to this. He explained in regards to the buffer it would be entirely on the Heritage Commons property. Mr. Wyatt summarized the transportation program being proposed: the Applicant is dedicating the right-of-way within the project; executing the revenue sharing agreement within 30 days of rezoning approval; prohibiting development activity on the property until the executed agreement is in place with the County; providing all the local matches; limiting the initial development within the project to be served by Section A to the 175 multi -family units and 50,000 square feet of commercial until construction commences on the Section B improvements. Mr. Wyatt addressed the proposal from FCSA (Frederick County Sanitation Authority); want to make sure the sewer conveyance system is at or near capacity, and the Applicant is willing to handle should an issue arise; would like to have the opportunity for a test well for water production on the property, the Applicant noted they are not knowledgeable enough at this time but would entertain the idea at some point. Mr. Wyatt addressed the comments from FCPS (Frederick County Public Schools) regarding the proffer containing the escrow and the way it was written. The Applicant has agreed to rewrite the proffer and it will be included in the Board of Supervisors information. In conclusion, Mr. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3286 Minutes of November 18, 2015 Wyatt stated they have a development program that they believe truly provides for mixed use, provides for regional improvements, ensures that development will occur timely through the phasing program, and commitments for revenue sharing. Mr. Wyatt concluded the developers are excited to get this project underway and are seeking the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Commissioner Thomas requested clarification regarding the I-81 Bridge, should the cost come in higher than the estimated amount is the developer responsible for all the additional costs. Mr. Wyatt explained the County manages the revenue sharing agreements and they are structured so the developer would be responsible for any additional costs and local match. Commissioner Unger commented FCSA is looking for new places to find water to service the County and if a test well could be accomplished on the property it certainly would be a blessing for the County. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Mr. Michael Shepard of the Shawnee Magisterial District came forward. He owns the two properties directly to the south of this project. Mr. Shepard requested clarification the setbacks and buffers for his properties. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Ruddy presented an overview of the zoning districts impacting Mr. Shepard's property. He requested Mr. Wyatt offer clarification for Mr. Shepard and what will take place. Mr. Wyatt explained if there is a zoning imposed buffer between Mr. Shepard's property and their project the County has in place a Common Share Buffer and Screening Easement Agreement that can be utilized. The Applicant has agreed to provide and noted the language can be adjusted to reflect the change. Commissioner Thomas noted this is a significantly improved project. He continued the I- 81 Bridge item is important to consider and the section of Airport Road being four lanes will help ease traffic tremendously. He feels this is a great compromise and is in favor of this request. Commissioner Manuel noted his support of this application and pointed out it has been drastically improved. Upon motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval by majority vote Rezoning #10-15 Heritage Commons, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to rezone 96.28+/- acres from B2 (Business General) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, 54+/- acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District and .31+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with proffers. The properties are located west of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Airport Road (Route 645) and are identified by the Property Identification Numbers 63-A-150, 64-A- 10, and 64-A-12 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. YES: Wilmot, Unger, Marston, Ambrogi, Manuel, Thomas, Molden, Triplett, Dunlap, Mohn NO: Kenney, Oates (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3287 Minutes of November 18, 2015 OTHER Chairman Wilmot requested Mr. Bishop clarify what the .75 cent rule is in regards to the Woodbine rezoning. Mr. Bishop explained there is no .75 cent rule; this was something that developed over time. He continued it started with the BBG rezoning on Route 11 North, there were significant improvements offsite that were needed and could not be fully addressed so they proffered .72 cents per square foot; however, in addition to that they proffered a partial portion of the signal at Branson Springs Road, they did significant upgrades along the frontage to Route I 1 which was between 1000 and 1200 square feet, and provided a right-of-way. He continued that was the first recent example that got involved in square foot transportation proffer. Mr. Bishop noted more recently the Blackburn rezoning was addressed and followed the BBG path. He concluded a precedent was unintentionally set and Staff has been asked to develop a "number". Mr. Bishop noted that would be very difficult to establish. He feels this would be something for the Transportation Committee to take a look at and study. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Marston and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wilmot, Chairman Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3288 Minutes of November 18, 2015 OTHER Chairman Wilmot requested Mr. Bishop clarify what the .75 cent rule is in regards to the Woodbine rezoning. Mr. Bishop explained there is no .75 cent rule; this was something that developed over time. He continued it started with the BBG rezoning on Route 1 I North, there were significant improvements offsite that were needed and could not be fully addressed so they proffered .72 cents per square foot; however, in addition to that they proffered a partial portion of the signal at Branson Springs Road, they did significant upgrades along the frontage to Route 11 which was between 1000 and 1200 square feet, and provided a right-of-way. He continued that was the first recent example that got involved in square foot transportation proffer. Mr. Bishop noted more recently the Blackburn rezoning was addressed and followed the BBG path. He concluded a precedent was unintentionally set and Staff has been asked to develop a "number". Mr. Bishop noted that would be very difficult to establish. He feels this would be something for the Transportation Committee to take a look at and study. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Marston and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JOne M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3288 Minutes of November 18, 2015