Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 04-19-23 Meeting Minutes Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4025 Minutes of April 19, 2023 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 April 19, 2023. PRESENT: John F. Jewell, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; William A. Orndoff, Stonewall District; Justin Kerns, Stonewall District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Jason Aikens, Gainesboro District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; Mollie Brannon, Back Creek District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: Robert S. Molden, Opequon District and Charles Markert, Red Bud District STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; John A. Bishop, Assistant Director; M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jewell called the April 19, 2023 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Jewell commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon a motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Thomas the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kozel, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the March 1, 2023 meeting. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4026 Minutes of April 19, 2023 COMMITTEES Frederick Water – Mtg. 04/18/23 Chairman Jewell reported the Board adopted the FY20234 budget and he shared the operations report for March. City of Winchester – Mtg. 04/18/23 Commissioner Richardson, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the Commission discussed and approved a CUP for a hotel on Crossover Boulevard. Board of Supervisors Supervisor Ludwig, Board of Supervisor Liaison, reported the Board continues to discuss budget items. ------------ CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Jewell 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 Jewell closed the public comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #10-22 of Fruit Hill (Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., DTS, LC, and William O. Minor) Action – Postponed to May 17, 2023 Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible conflict of interest. John A. Bishop, Assistant Director, reported this application was submitted to rezone 220.06+/- acres which consist of 189.08=/- acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, 10.34+/- acres from RA District to B2 (General Business) District, and 20.64+/- acres from RA District to either TM (Technology Manufacturing) District or M1 District with proffers. The properties are located at 384 Ruebuck Lane, 1420 Rest Church Road at the southwest corner of the intersection of Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33 -9-1A, 33- A-89, and 33-A-90 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. He shared a zoning map of the property along with a long-range land use map. Mr. Bishop displayed the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) detailed layout that was provided by the Applicant. Mr. Bishop presented the following: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4027 Minutes of April 19, 2023 Transportation proffers • Additional traffic study and mitigation if the Applicant develops any permitted use resulting in higher trip generation than previously studies • Relocation of Zachary Ann Lane to connect with Rest Church Road further west than the current location • Construction of 2 lanes of proposed Fruit Hill Road on 104’ of right-of-way with shared use path • Construction of westbound left turn lane on Rest Church Road where it intersects with the proposed Fruit Hill Road • Abandonment of Ruebuck Lane right-of-way, construction of a turnaround for buses • Improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road, or if that proffer is unable to be implemented, a cash proffer of $650,000 to be used toward road improvements • No connections to Rest Church Road or Ruebuck Lane other than the proposed Fruit Hill Road Other notable proffers • Use restrictions • 2,125,500 square feet of warehousing • 300,000 square feet of “Proposed Technology/Data Facility” • No more than 1 hotel with a maximum of 100 rooms • No more than 5,000 square feet of restaurant • Perimeter landscaping as depicted on the GDP and a 6-foot landscaped berm along Carrollton Subdivision and Ridgeway Estates Subdivision; the Applicant proffers vegetation preservation for 75 feet or 200-foot building setback where adjacent to RA property with no berm • Lighting proffers in excess of ordinance standards Mr. Bishop noted this does not conform with the Board of Supervisor’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. He presented Staff notes regarding this application; noting the intent is not to negatively influence, just pointing out the changes: • Proffer 3.5: Staff would emphasize that it would be ideal for the Applicant to complete the upgrades to Ruebuck Lane instead of the cash proffer. • Proffer 3.6: Staff would note that the Applicant has removed potential commitments to complete improvements needed at Exit 323 per the TIA. • Proffer 3.7: Staff has concerns with the justification used to reach the amount of this proffer. In addition to that, Staff contends that physical improvements are preferable to cash given the high level of variability in project cost as it moves from planning estimates to construction. Staff experience in project implementation indicates that the estimated costs used by the Applicant are low. • Proffer 3/13: While Staff recognizes that the Applicant has implemented the signalization agreement proffer, the pro rata share calculation as described in the proffer is flawed. No share of the pro rata cost should be applied to trips (Rest Church Road through trips) that do not create the need for a signal. Commissioner Orndoff commented he noticed the proffers removed the I-81 exit. Mr. Bishop explained that was the previous version and the Board of Supervisors were given a choice. Commissioner Brannon asked what happens to the proffered right-of-way if they cannot accomplish that. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4028 Minutes of April 19, 2023 Mr. Bishop stated it would switch to a cash proffer. Commissioner Thomas commented he feels the buffer at Flying J would serve a good use. He shared his concerns with the transportation proffers and does not feel they are adequate; he is concerned with the amount of traffic already in that area. Commissioner Aikens inquired if the proffers satisfy the TIA if they cannot get the right -of-way. Mr. Bishop noted, they do not at this time. Commissioner Aikens asked if they cannot get the right-of-way would the $650,000 be sufficient for the improvements needed at the intersection. Mr. Bishop stated likely not, especially by the time they would get to it. Commissioner Kerns asked if this item is approved at this time could they build before the road improvements are made. Mr. Bishop explained they would need to complete the internal roads. Commissioner Brannon inquired on the prospective businesses that could be built. Mr. Bishop explained that is based on the proffers of one (1) hotel and one (1) restaurant. Mr. Adam Campbell of VDOT came forward to address questions. Commissioner Thomas asked if he feels when reviewing the TIA it is overstated or accurate. Mr. Campbell explained it follows the guidance that VDOT provides; the delay, queuing, stacking are all considered. He noted the main issue is between I-81 and Route 11. Commissioner Brannon commented the existing traffic is not caused by this application and it doesn’t seem fair to have this Applicant pay for the problems that already exist. Mr. John Foote, of Walsh Colucci Lubeley and Walsh, representing the Applicant came forward and shared a brief presentation. He noted, the Applicant is only obligated to mitigate their impacts. Commissioner Thomas asked if 300,000 square feet will be sufficient for this. Mr. Foote responded yes. Commissioner Thomas asked regarding the right-of-way would they consider options. Mr. Foote noted yes, they would to cover the costs. Mr. Roderick Williams, County Attorney, commented that it is legally possible. Commissioner Brumback asked if Fruit Hill would be four (4) lanes of traffic. Mr. Foote explained they would be building two (2) lanes at this time with the right -of-way dedicated to the County and that Equus is prepared to take a long-term approach. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. Joan Kibler of the Gainesboro District commented she appreciates the Planning Commission taking a close look at this and making sure the road work is done before the traffic increases and making sure adequate proffers are in place. Two (2) other citizens spoke in favor of this. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Brannon commented she is in favor of this; cannot keep discouraging businesses and she feels they have done a good job. Commissioner Brumback stated she is in favor of this and that the County needs the tax base. Commissioner Thomas noted he is not in favor of the proffers and would like to see a compromise. Commissioner Triplett complimented the Applicant, noting they have done what the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have asked. Commissioner Orndoff stated he feels the road improvements should fall to the Applicant if the application is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that traffic is a major concern. Chairman Jewell stated this can be postponed allowing the Applicant time to work on the proffers. Mr. Foote suggested this be brought back to the Planning Commission on May 17, 2023. Upon a motion made by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by Commissioner Orndoff to postpone this item to the May 17, 2023 meeting Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4029 Minutes of April 19, 2023 BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does recommend postponement of Rezoning #10-22 of Fruit Hill (Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., DTS, LC, and William O. Minor) to the May 17, 2023 meeting. Yes: Brumback, Thomas, Jewell, Orndoff, Kerns, Kozel No: Brannon, Aikens, Triplett Abstain: Manuel (Note: Commissioners Molden and Markert were absent from the meeting). Ordinance Amendment – Signs Action – No Recommendation M. Tyler Klein reported this is a proposal to amend the sign ordinance to be compliant with the Reed vs. Town of Gilbert ruling (SCOTUS); specifically, the changes proposed to ensure a content- neutral approach to sign regulations. He continued, much of the existing sign standards (size, height, number, location) throughout the Zoning Ordinance remain unchanged; references to signs in other sections were updated or removed where applicable. Mr. Klein shared the current Zoning Ordinance Standards: The section is established to regulate the erection, number, area, height, location, type, and maintenance of signs to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and the orderly development of the County by protecting property values, and providing adequate signage for businesses and motorists; protecting and enhancing the image, appearance and economic vitality of the County and supporting the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan (§165-201.06). He presented the proposed changes: • Multi-Tenant Frontage Signs Proposal: Signage proportional to the linear frontage of building frontage. Current Standard: 20% of the wall area, not to exceed 200 square feet in sign area. In situations where there are more than eight (8) individual building users, each user shall not have a sign larger than 25 square feet. • Electronic Signs Proposal: Electronic display portion of signs may be up to 100% of the sign area. The frequency at which the sign display may change is a minimum of 15 seconds. Electronic signs are also now proposed to be permitted in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Current Standard: 50%of the permitted sign area to display special events, banners, and other non-static information, 2 minutes between changes in display, and is prohibited in the RA (Rural Areas) District. • Signs in the RA District Proposal: A maximum sign area of 50 square feet (SF) for allowed uses (such as farm markets and churches) in the RA District. The sign size permitted would be limited to 50 SF regardless of the adjoining roadway classification. Current Standard: Codifies sign allowances already granted by the Zoning Administrator and/or allowed with approved conditional use permits (CUP). Frederick County Planning Commission Page 4030 Minutes of April 19, 2023 Mr. Klein concluded, the Board of Supervisors discussed this item on March 8th and asked for consideration to increase allowance for electronic signs to 100% of the sign area and reduce the display change frequency to 15 seconds. Commissioner Thomas asked where the 15 seconds was derived from. Mr. Klein stated it was brought forth by the Board of Supervisors and a confirmation study done with other localities. Commissioner Thomas asked if the speed limit has been considered regarding this. Mr. Klein noted specific direction was taken from the Board of Supervisors and in his research, he did not find anything pertaining to the speed limit. Commissioner Brumback asked to be provided visuals of signs. Mr. Klein shared photos of various signs. The primary discussion among the Commissioners was the appropriateness of the request to increase the electronic display area for freestanding signs. Chairman Jewell called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Jewell closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commissioners were split on the proposed change to allow freestanding signs to have electronic display areas up to 100% of the sign area permitted. Staff noted that the existing electronic display allowance, up to 50% of the sign area, was already less restrictive than other localities, many of which restrict the use of electronic display on signs to only gas prices, time, and temperature. Concerns for increasing the electronic display are included light pollution in the rural areas and creating more distraction for motorists. There was consensus that reducing the frequency at which the sign display may change to 15 seconds was appropriate and should be adopted by the Board. The other proposed changes to the multitenant frontage signs and signs in the RA Zoning District received support. Following two (2) tie votes, the Planning Commission did not provide a recommendation on the sign ordinance amendment. (Note: Commissioners Molden and Markert were absent from the meeting). ------------- OTHER Wyatt G. Pearson, Director, shared the Planning Department has received a design plan for Willow Run and Snowden Subdivision, age-restricted plans. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commis sioner Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ John F. Jewell, Chairman ___________________________ Wyatt G. Pearson, Secretary