Loading...
PC 05-07-14 Meeting Minutes Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3088 Minutes of May 7, 2014 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 May 7, 2014. 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; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; and Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; and Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. ----------- CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the May 7, 2014 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. ------------- INTRODUCTION OF VISITING COMMISSIONER Chairman Wilmot introduced Mr. Matt Wendling from the Warren County Planning Commission. Chairman Wilmot said that Mr. Wendling is attending the PlanVirginia Certified Planning Commissioner’s Program, along with Frederick County’s Commissioner, Charles Dunlap. She said that Mr. Wendling is attending this evening because it is one of the assignments for the certification program. Chairman Wilmot welcomed Mr. Wendling to the meeting. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3089 Minutes of May 7, 2014 KEY TO COMMONLY USED PLANNING TERMS Chairman Wilmot pointed out the new reference guide inserted into the agenda package and on the website which defines the acronyms and other planning terms used on a regular basis. She said this new reference guide will be placed on the County’s web site at www.fcva.us -agendas for the Planning Commission. ------------- ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. ------------- MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the minutes of the April 2, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. ------------- COMMITTEE REPORTS Chairman Wilmot announced another new addition to the Planning Commission agenda packet, under Committee Reports. She pointed out that minutes from committees which have recently met will be included under Committee Reports, so that other members of the Commission, the Board, and the public can be better informed on the discussions of various committees. Chairman Wilmot said the committee minutes will also be posted on the website. Transportation Committee – 4/28/14 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported on the five items that were on the Transportation Committee’s agenda: 1) Welcoming Signage – the EDC (Economic Development Commission) and the Business-Friendly Committee had recommended welcoming signs for Frederick County; Since VDOT has specific rules about signage, the committee recommended this topic be sent back to the EDC to see if they could put something together; 2) Interstate, Primary, & Secondary Road Plan Updates – was discussed by the Committee and will be presented to the Planning Commission at this evening’s meeting; 3) Intersection of Tasker Road and Crosskeys Blvd. – an additional lane for left turns is being sought by county deputies and VDOT because a few accidents have occurred; a study will be done; 4) Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District – was discussed by the Committee and will be presented to the Planning Commission at this evening’s meeting; 5) Draft VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3090 Minutes of May 7, 2014 Board of Supervisors – 4/23/14 Mtg. Supervisor Robert (Bob) Hess reported on three of the Boards’ agenda items that were related to the Planning Commission: 1) Public hearing on a conditional use permit (CUP) for a kennel on Laurel Grove Road in the Back Creek Magisterial District; quite a few citizens spoke; the Back Creek Supervisor indicated he received additional information and questions and requested the CUP be postponed until the Board’s next meeting. 2) Public hearing on revisions to the Floodplain Ordinance; there were no public comments; a brief discussion took place and the revisions to the ordinance passed. 3) Proposed revisions to the MDP requirements – following brief discussion, the Board adopted a resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. -------------- 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 wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Draft Update of the 2014-2015 Frederick County Interstate, Primary and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. Action – Recommended Approval Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, presented the public hearing item to consider the update of the 2014-2015 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Mr. Bishop stated the statutory-required piece is the Secondary System Update and the Interstate and Primary is something Frederick County does to make sure VDOT is well appraised of the County’s priorities. Mr. Bishop began discussion with the Interstate Road Plan, which consists of Interstate 81 and associated improvements. He said that nothing has changed from the previous plan; the highest priority, Exit 310, is underway with the right-of-way acquisition phase; completion of this project is several years out. Other priorities remain the same in terms of widening and the relocation of Exit 307 in the Stephens City area. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3091 Minutes of May 7, 2014 Moving to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop stated the priorities have not changed from the previous year and Route 37 continues to be the top priority with the top prioritized segment of Route 37 being from Exit 310 (I-81) over to Route 522. He stated this link is very important, both in terms of helping with Route 277, Exit 307, and Exit 313 to the north, and providing a much better access point via Route 522 to the Inland Port. Mr. Bishop commented the Route 277 project is well underway in terms of design and initial right-of-way acquisition; however, it has become apparent the project is underfunded. He said while some are familiar with the termini discussion being from the interstate all the way to Warrior Drive, it is now from the interstate to Double Church Road, primarily due to the high cost of right-of-way. Proceeding next to the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said this is the section that is statutorily required. He noted Sulphur Springs Road has been the top project on this plan and is in the right-of-way acquisition phase. The project involves significant improvements at the intersection, as well as an upgrade of the roadway, although not a significant widening. He said previously, a full four-lane divided roadway with a shared-use path for bicycles and pedestrians was considered; however, a basic reconstruction of the existing road to a more modern standard with a wide- paved shoulder for bicyclists and pedestrians will take place. The re-alignment of Red Bud Road does not have a lot of funds; however, the project remains important in terms of being able to re-align the ramp from north-bound I-81 out to where Red Bud Road currently intersects with Route 11 and will result in the removal of a signal and alignment of the on/off ramps from and to I-81 from Route 11 on the northbound side. He noted the two references to East Tevis Street, explaining this is all Russell 150 revenue-sharing work. Mr. Bishop next referred to Martinsburg Pike and pointed out this is a revenue- sharing project, as well as a safety project by VDOT at the intersection of Welltown Road and Route 11N. He said Carpers Valley Road and Renaissance Drive continue to be on the list and are associated with a pending revenue sharing application. Mr. Bishop said he has received some positive indications the revenue sharing application will be approved, nevertheless, this won’t be official until later this month or in June. He said a significant approval for Snowden Bridge Boulevard from Route 11N over across the railroad tracks and into the Graystone development is anticipated for this approximate 4½ million dollar project. Mr. Bishop continued with the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects and he commented it’s the least funded portion, but one which he gets the most calls from citizens. He said the number one priority on last year’s list, Warm Springs Road, has been removed because it is about to be completed. Mr. Bishop stated that no new projects are being promoted. He said the news following on the heels of the new transportation legislation is that the estimates for expected revenue are significantly less than what was expected and what was forecasted when the legislation was passed. He said this doesn’t mean there’s no road money coming in; however, it is much less than projected. As a result, there is no additional money to promote roads from the unscheduled to the scheduled list. He noted there are still some minor changes and Laurel Grove Road is the primary change; it was previously listed as one segment, but now is divided into two segments. Mr. Bishop explained the pave-in-place, rural rustic road treatments, along with using local residency forces, are easier to accomplish when the project is under a certain dollar amount, which is why it was split into two segments. Regarding the “Unscheduled” list, Mr. Bishop stated it is still a very long list and many citizens want their road paved. He said three new projects have been added to the bottom of the list. He explained that according to the Board of Supervisors’ policy, in the years projects are not promoted to the scheduled list, the project ratings are not redone because it is a big effort and frankly a waste of time when projects are not being promoted. Those projects added include St. John’s Road, Mt. Olive Road, and Shockeysville Road. He said assuming there is the ability next year to promote projects, the list would then be re-rated. He commented that this page Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3092 Minutes of May 7, 2014 of the plan has been updated with a note of explanation to the public that project ratings are updated only when funding is available to promote projects. Mr. Bishop stated the Transportation Committee reviewed the Update of the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plans on April 28, 2014 and recommended its approval. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen comments and called for anyone wishing to speak regarding the road plans to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comments portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates commented that Mr. Bishop did an excellent job with his overview of the plans and he appreciated his thoroughness. No other questions or issues were raised. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crocket and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby endorse and recommends approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Draft Update of the 2014-2015 Frederick County Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Ultimately, priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Dunlap, and Unger were absent from the meeting.) Update on the Six-Year Road Improvement Plan Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, returned to the podium and provided an update on the Six-Year Road Improvement Plan at the Commission’s request. Mr. Bishop reported that Frederick County participated in the April 29, 2014 Commonwealth Transportation Board’s (CTB) public hearing for the Six-Year Improvement Program Draft. A couple key messages he tried to send were first, how grateful Frederick County is for how well the Revenue Sharing Program has been going and the good advantage Frederick County makes in terms of using it with public/private partnerships to get projects accomplished. Secondly, Mr. Bishop referred to Exit 313, noting the significant dollar amounts designated for the cost of the interstate modification study; he said a little seed money is there for an additional project. He mentioned the 313 bridge is seriously under maintained and is the neediest bridge in the Valley in terms of re-decking. He inferred to the CTB that if this is what the seed money is intended for, Frederick County absolutely supports it 100% because the maintenance is needed for the safety of the traveling public. However, if the seed money is to start implementing whatever the recommendations may be for the interchange modification study, then he earnestly requested the CTB consider Frederick County’s priorities. Mr. Bishop said he offered Frederick County’s first priority, the segment of Route 37 from I-81 over to Route 522, off of Exit 310. He said this would benefit not only 313, but also Route 277, Exit 307, and significantly enhance service to the Inland Port. He noted that although the Inland Port is not within Frederick County, it is a vital facility for the County. Mr. Bishop said he strived to make the point that if the 313 interchange modification is the project that VDOT is trying to build toward, it’s being done without necessarily going hand-in-hand with Frederick County. He Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3093 Minutes of May 7, 2014 suggested to the CTB that if the County is being primed for another major project that the CTB work with the local government and consider Frederick County’s priorities before a final decision is made. ------------- INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Regarding Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District. These revisions will remove the requirement that R5 Communities must be “age-restricted” communities to qualify for private streets. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a second request to allow the use of private streets for all types of developments in the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins explained that currently, the use of private streets in the R5 Zoning District is only permitted within age-restricted communities and only if approved by the Board of Supervisors. She said the amendment before the Commission tonight proposes to allow the use of private streets within all developments in the R5 District, but would still require a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. The only modification to the text before the Commission this evening, versus the previous amendment, is an addition that the development must include a minimum of 1,000 lots. Ms. Perkins provided some history, noting the first request was reviewed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) in October of 2012; the Planning Commission, the Public Works Committee, and the Transportation Committee, as well as the Board of Supervisors, discussed this item in 2012 and 2013. Ultimately, the Board declined to send the requested amendment forward for public hearing. She said the applicant has since requested another review of the text amendment and the discussion was moved forward by the Board of Supervisors. The Board discussed this second request at their February 12, 2014 meeting and the Board sent it forward to the Transportation Committee for evaluation. She noted the Transportation Committee referred the proposal back to the DRRC at their February meeting and at their April meeting, the Transportation Committee sent the amendment back to the Board without an action. Ms. Perkins said when the DRRC discussed this at their February meeting, concerns were raised about the maintenance of the private streets and the potential for the Homeowners Association (HOA) to go defunct, resulting in a request for the County to take over maintenance of the streets. Ms. Perkins said the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Thomas’ concern was the need for specificity in the language that private streets are built in accordance with all VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) design and construction standards in much more detail than is currently stated within the ordinance. Commissioner Thomas believed the broader ordinance, not just the R5 ordinance, should specifically state that the design, structural section, material quality, workmanship, drainage design, vertical curve, horizontal sections, etc., all must meet VDOT standards and all must be verified by an independent engineer. In addition, the independent engineer would have to be paid for by the developer or the construction contractor. Secondly, he would want to see something in the deed that would state very specifically that these streets meet VDOT standards and the maintenance and improvements of drainage systems, snow Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3094 Minutes of May 7, 2014 removal, etc., is the responsibility of the HOA. In addition, Commissioner Thomas said there needs to be a mechanism included that these responsibilities are recognized by the buyer of the lot or home and the homeowner will be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance and snow removal. Commissioner Thomas commented that if sometime in future, the HOA wants to give the streets to the County or State, through financial hardship or other reasons, the roads will have been constructed to State standards. Commissioner Oates said he agreed with Commissioner Thomas’ comments except for one item. He said he has designed roads to VDOT standards in the past, as little as seven years ago, and today those roads would not meet VDOT requirements because of VDOT’s ever-changing standards. Commissioner Thomas said he wasn’t necessarily seeking a commitment from VDOT, but a construction quality of a road that would last for a certain time. He wanted to move away from a road that was constructed to sub-quality standards. Commissioner Oates agreed the roads should be built to a good standard; nevertheless, if the intention was that someday the road could go into the VDOT system, odds are, after five to six years, it wouldn’t meet the criteria any longer and would have to be rebuilt. Commissioner Oates said he has been a member on all the committees this subject has gone through over the previous year. He said he keeps hearing the comment that private streets are already allowed in age-restricted communities, so why not allow them in other residential communities, as well. Commissioner Oates said back when this originally went through, his rational for allowing private streets within age-restricted communities was that the residents would be mature, responsible, and safe drivers and the HOAs would be more likely to remain stable. He commented that he liked the idea of taxpayers not having to pay for someone else’s private roads. He said he was still in favor of private streets in age-restricted areas, but did not know how we would vote on non-age-restricted areas. Commissioner Triplett inquired how the road system would be handled in a gated community. Commissioner Oates replied it’s all private; it’s up to the homeowners to maintain the roads. Commissioner Triplett said we already have this within the County; it’s already available to people. Commissioner Thomas commented that when a gate is placed on a private road, it’s more obvious to the residents that it’s their road; however, if residents want private streets, they need to understand what they are getting and what the responsibilities are. Commissioners believed that requiring the roads to be constructed to a certain standard would help to protect both the people who are buying into the private road and the remaining county residents as well. Chairman Wilmot recognized a number of individuals seated in the audience who had indicated their concerns and/or who had comments and possible solutions. Chairman Wilmot commented that if there were no objections, she would like to give these citizens an opportunity to speak. The following persons came forward: Mr. Chris Barltrop, a resident on Tutelo, Phase 2, of Lake Frederick, said that Phase 1 is really not an issue because it is age-restricted and the roads are private. Mr. Barltrop said the issue is more with Phase 2, where there is a blend of age-restricted and non-age-restricted residences. He commented he served as Finance Committee Chairman and understands that maintaining the roads would require setting up a fund, similar to what is in place for their buildings maintenance, so that in 15-20 years when the roads need re-surfacing, adequate funds are available. Mr. Barltrop believed the community could handle this responsibility. He said one issue is access to the lake and persons wondering into the Phase 2 side of the development who are looking for the lake. He said a gate would solve the problem; Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3095 Minutes of May 7, 2014 however, a gate cannot be placed across a public road. Mr. Barltrop presented the Commission with a list of alternatives or options he believes are available. He felt it would be advantageous for the developer to have clear guidance from the County on what is or is not permitted because they are in the difficult position of having to put in roads now, without having clear standards on what those roads should be. Mr. Larry Atkinson, also a resident of Lake Frederick, said his concern was based on comments made at the Transportation Committee meeting when those members spoke about having established criteria that would provide some assurance to the Board of Supervisors when they considered whether the HOA could meet their obligations to maintain not only the roads, but other expenses the HOA will face. Mr. Atkinson believed specific criteria were needed, not only for the developer, but also what the homeowners can expect in order to meet their total obligations. He said in the case of Lake Frederick, there are other potentially significant obligations, particularly the lake. He mentioned the Memorandum of Agreement between the developer and the VDGIF (Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries), which has not been fully defined and may have considerable financial obligations once the developer pulls out. In addition, Mr. Atkinson said they were promised a community center, and other amenities, which are not yet constructed and residents have no idea what the financial responsibilities are in the long term. Mr. Atkinson asked the Commission to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that there be specific criteria, clearly written, so that everyone understands the basis for a Board decision on a request for private roads in the R5 District. Mr. Richard Palowsky, a retired homeowner in Lake Frederick, next came forward. Mr. Palowsky said it was anticipated that the new area, with non-age-restricted homes, may have 750 to 1,000 residences, which generates an enormous amount of money when you think about HOA requirements. He was most concerned about the relationships of the community with the VDGIF, the lake, physical boundaries, the various rules, and the enormous expansion taking place. Mr. Palowsky said residents cannot call the Sheriff’s Department and expect someone to show up at the lake; they need to call the VDGIF. Mr. Palowsky said there have been drug situations and people staying all night in the lake area, which is why the gated concept was so important to many of the residents. No one else remained to speak and Chairman Wilmot called for Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, the attorney representing the developer at Lake Frederick, to come forward. Mr. Lawson stated there are over 300 folks presently residing at Lake Frederick and it is continuing to grow; the age- restricted sections are quite active and growing. He said this community was approved as a gated community with private roads and the intent is to continue development as a gated community, but this can’t be accomplished without private roads. Mr. Lawson said the existing private streets are built to very exacting standards which meet or exceed the standard for depth of pavement and the roads also satisfy all drainage requirements. He commented the construction traffic is what takes a toll on the roads and because the roads in this community were built to such high standards, the existing roads are in great shape. Mr. Lawson continued, stating that some changes were made to the proposed ordinance as a result of various committee meetings. He said detail was added regarding construction of the private roads and included a requirement for the depth of pavement, which must be inspected by Virginia engineers. The engineers would need to certify not only the design, but what was installed to satisfy the requirements. He said there is also language about the requirement for capital reserve studies on a bi- annual basis to guarantee reserve funds for future road maintenance. Mr. Lawson pointed out the developer does have an issue, however, with the horizontal aspect of road construction. He explained the developer intentionally does not want to construct massive roads that enable high-speed travel; he said Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3096 Minutes of May 7, 2014 they want to slow down vehicle traffic. Mr. Lawson said the message they are receiving is to construct the roads so they last and that is what this developer is doing. Mr. Lawson said the majority of residents at Lake Frederick want to keep their community gated, not just on one side of the lake, but on both sides of the lake. He said not only do they already have private streets within this community, they are building additional age-restricted sections which will have still additional private streets, along with private parking courts and town homes, all of which allow for private streets under the ordinance. He commented that a resident provided him with a statistic that if there is no further development in this community, they are in the 70+ % range in private streets. Mr. Lawson said this developer is happy to add standards so these roads are built to last, but they do not want to build VDOT roads; they also don’t want to turn this back over to the public. The residents want to keep this community gated and to finish it as a gated community. No further questions or issues were raised by the Commission at this time. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Commission’s comments on to the Board of Supervisors. ------------- Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Regarding Setback Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Buildings. The proposed revisions are to reduce the minimum front setback for multi-family residential buildings. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to the front setback for the housing type called, multi-family residential buildings. She said this was the housing type added in 2013 when the RP (Residential Performance) revisions were approved. She noted that during the discussion and public hearings, there was a residential street-scape section schematic that was provided as to how this housing type could be developed. That schematic depicted a multifamily building with a front setback of 12-20 feet. However, the text adopted for the multifamily buildings actually included a 35-foot front setback which was contrary to what was discussed during the discussions, work sessions, and public hearings. Ms. Perkins said there is presently an applicant who is trying to implement the housing type and they have requested the setback be re-evaluated to reduce the 35-foot front. Ms. Perkins said the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) reviewed this amendment at their March 2014 meeting. The DRRC initially discussed a change to reduce the setback from 35 feet to 15 feet, but believed 15 feet was too close to a public street; however, they were comfortable with a 20-foot front setback. Ms. Perkins said the staff was seeking comments from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendment. Commissioner Thomas was interested in the specifics of the setback and asked if the 20- foot setback was from the edge of the right-of-way or from the center line, and if this was made clear within the ordinance revision. Ms. Perkins said it is specifically stated within another section of the ordinance, which addresses how setbacks are determined, that the setback is 20 feet from the edge of the right-of-way.