Loading...
PC_05-04-05_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 May 4, 2005 PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; and Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; and David Shore, City of Winchester STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission minutes of April 6, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Rev iew & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 04/28/05 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS had three ordinance amendments on their agenda for discussion: a proposed amendment to remove business signs as a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) District; a proposed amendment to remove "advertising specialties- wholesale; and a proposed amendment to address inter -parcel connectors. C J Frederick County Planning Commission Page 15V6 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -2- • PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of the revocation of Conditional Use Permit #30 -99 of Winchester Motor Service (The Van Man) to operate a public garage without body repair. The property is located at 2372 Berryville Pike (Rt. 7 East) and is identified with P.I.N. 55 -A -102 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Revocation Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that the Planning Commission considered the revocation of this conditional use permit (CUP) at its February 2, 2005 meeting, but deferred action for 90 days to allow the property owner time to come into compliance with the conditions of her permit and with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cheran stated that the violations included tractor trailers, debris, and tires on the property. He said that staff has visited the site on various occasions, and as recently as this morning, and found the site not to be in compliance with the conditions set forth in CUP #30 -99. Mr. Cheran added that the Frederick County Fire Marshal and the Frederick County Solid Waste Coordinator have both started cases on this property. A member of the Commission inquired if the proceedings initiated by the Solid Waste Coordinator and the Fire Marshal would continue if the Planning Commission revokes the CUP. Mr. Cheran replied yes; he said that those two agencies enforce a separate code other than the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and their proceedings will continue. Mr. Cheran added that if the Board of Supervisors decides at their May 25 meeting that revocation is warranted, the staff will proceed with criminal charges the very next day. Ms. Sheila W. Beach, the owner of the property, stated that her reasor complying is a financial one. She said that she can not afford the expense involved to haN materials hauled away and, she can not get a bank to lend her the money. Ms. Beach said sh all but one of the tractor trailers removed from the property. She said she has personall Zuckermans to dispose of steel and gasoline tanks, and she has also removed over 60 ba Beach remarked that her previous tenants left her with all of the debris. She said she will cleaning up the property. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persc speak: For not completely the tires and other did, however, have made nine trips to of garbage. Ms. ontinue to work on came forward to Mr. Michael A. Hopkins, an adjoining property owner, believed the Planning Commission should not allow the CUP to continue until the property has been cleaned up. Mr. Hopkins said that he has not seen much change in the appearance of the property and he believed there was more than one trailer remaining on the property. Mr. Michael D. Groll, an adjoining property owner, recalled that at the February 2, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Beach said that she would evict the lessee for violating the lease agreement and remove the tires, cars, two mobile homes, and other debris. In addition, she agreed to evict the operator of the tractor - trailers, which constituted a fleet - maintenance facility. Mr. Groll said that he has lost countless hours of sleep due to the noise coming from tractor - trailer refrigeration units which run during the night. Mr. Groll said that it has been four months since a violation letter was issued to Ms. Beach and two months since the Planning Commission's meeting. He said that as of yesterday, at noon, the piles of tires remain, the mobile homes remain, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1507 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -3- • a non - working vehicle is on the property, including debris, and there are more tractor - trailers than there were on February 2. Mr. Groll requested that this CUP be immediately revoked He believed that if the CUP was not revoked, the violations on the property would be repeated in the future. There was no one else who wished to speak and Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chairman DeHaven asked Ms. Beach if the tenants had been evicted from the property and Ms. Beach replied yes. Commissioner Ours said that when he visited the site earlier today, there appeared to be persons in residence in the smaller building to the right of the garage area; he said there were stickers on the door stating they accepted Visa and Mastercard. Commissioner Ours asked what business was operating there. Ms. Beach replied that it was the trucking business. She said that the operator of the trucking business was told by both Mr. Cheran and herself that he was not in the proper zoning district to conduct his business. She also found out that he did not have a business license. I Commission members believed the property needed to be cleaned up and then, afterward, if there was a legitimate use, there was always an opportunity for the property owner to come in and apply again for a conditional use permit. j Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanim usly recommend the revocation of Conditional Use Permit 430 -99 of Winchester Motor Service( e V an Man) to operate a public garage without body repair at 2372 Berryville Pike (Rt. 7 East). (Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to alter the Eastern Road Plan Changes include roads and proposed roads between Berryville Pike (Rt. 7) and Senseny Road (Rt. 657), east of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656). The alterations are in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reviewed the proposed revisions of the Eastern Road Plan with the Commission. The first proposed revision was to classify the new spine road, proffered with the Haggerty rezoning, as a major collector road and to show the extension of this major collector road down to Senseny Road. Ms. Eddy assured the Commission that this new collector is not meant to be a replacement for a future Rt. 37 in this area; Rt. 37 remains clearly shown on the Eastern Road Plan as a new major arterial road. Ms. Eddy stated, however, that because this major collector road would provide a connection between Senseny Road and Rt. 7, other elements of the Eastern Road Plan in this area are being re- examined as well. The second proposed modification to the Eastern Road Plan described by Ms. Eddy was for a new major collector road to be established between a re- routed Valley Mill Road and the spine road on the Canyon, LC property. She added that land was reserved in this area for such a future road through the proffers associated with the Haggerty rezoning. Ms. Eddy noted that the advantages to this new proposal are that less traffic would use Morning Glory Road and • the one -lane bridge section of Valley Mill Road; in addition, the majority of traffic in the area would access Rt. 7 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1508 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -4- ® at a signalized intersection. Ms. Eddy reported that the Transportation Committee considered the Eastern Road Plan revisions at their meeting of March 1, 2005, and unanimously recommended approval; and the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered the revisions at their meeting of March 14, 2005 and recommended approval. In addition, discussions were held by the Planning Commission at their meeting on April 6, 2005 and by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on April 13, 2005. Commissioner Straub raised the issue of who would be responsible for the rerouting of Valley Mill Road; she was concerned about the construction traffic during the development of the Haggerty property. It was noted that the re- alignment of Valley Mill Road was not likely to occur until the properties it traverses develop. It was also noted that the spine road would have to be built prior to building permits being issued for the Haggerty property. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Gary Adams, one of the owners of Goldies, LC property, said that the owners of Goldies, LC have been trying to sell their property since January of 2005 and they were advised by the Planning Department staff that a rezoning approval would be contingent on the construction of the road by the developer. Mr. Adams explained to the Commission his unsuccessful pursuits to acquire an access for his property through adjoining parcels. He believed that access via the Stafford property was a possibility; he said the Staffords favored the Eastern Road Plan because it would re -route the traffic off of the one -lane bridge and would eliminate their responsibility to fund road construction. Mr. Adams asked if the Commission could possibly get something in place or get a commitment from the Staffords that they were willing to provide an easemi nt. Chairman DeHaven stated that he understood Mr. Adams' concerns; however, the Planning Commission did not have the authority to act on Mr. Adams' request. Members of the Planning Commission supported the proposed revisions to the Eastern Road Plan and no outstanding issues of concern were raised. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Straub, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan to alter the Eastern Road Plan Changes include roads and proposed roads between Berryville Pike (Rt. 7) and Senseny Road (Rt. 657), east of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656). The majority vote was as follows: YES (REC. APPROVAL) Straub, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Manuel, Wilmot NO: Gochenour (Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1509 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -5- PUBLIC MEETING • Consideration of the endorsement of a limited access line break at Virginia State Route 37 for the development known as Kernstown Commons. This property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 11 and Rt. 37 in Kernstown. The property is identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -10 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. A public meeting for the endorsement of the limited access line break is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Commonwealth Transportation Board before the application can be accepted for their review. Action — Recommended Endorsement of the Limited Access Line Break Ms. Candice Perkins, Planner, reported that the Planning Department received a request from Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC (PHR &A) on behalf of the project known as Kemstown Commons for the endorsement of a limited access line break. She noted that this was the same property that was recently considered by the Planning Commission, at their March 2, 2005 meeting, for Master Development Plan (MDP) approval. She said the MDP for this site was approved by the Board of Supervisors with conditions at their March 23, 2005 meeting. Ms. Perkins explained that the MDP before the Commission in March had a total of three proposed entrances: two full, and one right- in/right -out. This limited access endorsement request is only for the northernmost full commercial entrance and the right- in/right -out has been eliminated from the project. The entrance that the applicant is requesting the break for will be signalized and aligns with the off ramp of Rt. 37. Ms. Perkins continued, stating that the request for endorsement of the limited access line break is the first step for the applicant to begin the review process with the Commonwealth Transportation Board, who will ultimately decide if this break will be granted. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior Vice President with PHR &A, was;present to represent the Nerangis Orange Partnership, the owners of Kemstown Commons. Mr. Maddox presented some history • which led up to the requested endorsement. He said the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider this break after the County has indicated there is no Comprehensive Policy Plan issue with entering the site at the points indicated. Commissioner Light was concerned about the adequacy of the right -hand turn lanes coming out of the site; he said that as traffic comes out of the project towards the bridge, they will be taming into 45 mph traffic without the benefit of an acceleration lane. Mr. Maddox said that there will be sufficient room underneath the bridge for road improvements; he did not anticipate there would be a problem. Commissioner Straub inquired if the applicant intended to provide an inter -parcel connector with the property to the north. Mr. Maddox replied that it is the intention of the developers of that property to submit a request similar to what the Commission is considering this evening. He said that all of thi's is consistent with what VDOT would like to see occur. Mr. Maddox said that these intersections, both this one and at the terminus of Rt. 37, will need to be signalized. Board Liaison, Barbara Van Osten, asked Mr. Maddox why the secondary entrance would not also be signalized. In addition, she inquired how Mr. Maddox's proposed design fit in with preliminary thoughts on the Rt. 37 exit over I -81, with regard to the Crosspoint development. Mr. Maddox replied that the majority of traffic coming off Rt. 37 would go straight across the intersection and not make a turn. He then provided an explanation of the various traffic scenarios being studied for the Crosspoint development. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1510 Minutes of May 4, 2005 Eta Members of the Planning Commission believed the requested limited access break did not conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend the endorsement of a limited access line break at Virginia State Route 37 for the northern full commercial entrance for the development known as Kemstown Commons. DISCUSSION Consideration of a request by Greenway Engineering to include approximately 267 acres of land, known as the Solenberger - Bridgeforth Property, into the Urban Development Area (UDA). The properties are located north of Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622), east of Rt. 37 and west of the City ofd Winchester. The properties are identified with P.LN.s 63 -A -1 (only the portion east of Rt. 37), 63 -A -1A, 52 -A -310, 63 -A -1E, 63 -A -2L, 63 -A -21), and 63 -A -2B in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Also, the consideration of proposed modifications to the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan ( WJELUP), an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The WJELUP includes properties bounded by Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) to the south, Rt. 37 to the west, Merriman's Lane (Rt. 621), and the City of Winchester to the north and east. No Action Required At This Time 40 Commissioner Unger said that he would abstain from all discussion of this matter, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, said that the discussion item is a request by Greenway Engineering to include approximately 267 acres of land, known as the Solenberger- Bridgeforth Property, into the Urban Development Area (UDA); also included, are proposed modifications to the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan ( WJELUP). She said that both of these would constitute modifications to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planner Eddy reviewed the modifications to the Comprehensive Policy Plan with the Commission. She said that a key component to the WJELUP area is transportation. She said that existing transportation plans call for Jubal Early Drive to be extended to Rt. 37 with anew interchange at Rt. 37, which has been included in this plan. She said that also included is a new collector road, going from Juba] Early extended through the project down to Cedar Creek Grade. In addition, existing plans call for improvements to Cedar Creek Graded itself, as well as interchange improvements at Cedar Creek Grade and Rt. 37. Planner Eddy said the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommitee (CPPS) considered this request at a number of meetings and they were generally supportive of the UDA expansion request for the Solenberger-Bridgeforth properties. They directed staff to modify the existing WJELUP, rather than to create an entirely new plan. She added that the focus of much of the CPPS's discussion was transportation and, specifically, how an interchange at Jubal Early Drive and Rt. 37 could be constructed. At the CPPS's meeting on April 11, 2005, the members agreed to revise the transportation wording included within the WJELUP, as follows: "The development of new road systems, including a new interchange at Rt. 37, new signalization, and improvements to existing road systems are all elements of this plan. It will be the responsibility of private Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1511 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -7- property owners and developers to ensure that these improvements are made. The financial responsibility will rest primarily with private property owners and developers, although they may be able to demonstrate how a • partnership, possibly with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the City and/or the County, will accomplish the necessary road improvements. No rezoning should be approved until the County is certain that the transportation impacts of development will be mitigated." Commissioner Thomas pointed out that the designation of commercial and 'residential areas, as well as the County's transportation goals stated within the WJELUP portion of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, is not binding on the developer or property owner, but merely states the intent of the plan. He said that it would be up to the Planning Commission and other bodies at the time of rezoning to assure tliat the vision was implemented. Planner Eddy added that this is a long -range land use plan and future proposed rezonings would be compared to the plan to see if they conformed with the plan. Board Liaison, Ms. Barbara Van Osten, inquired if a school site had been discussed. Ms. Eddy stated that the text of the WJELUP clearly calls for a school site; however, a specific location on the plan has not been designated. Ms. Van Osten also asked if the road connecting Jubal Early to Cedar Creek Grade would be a two -lane or four -lane road. Ms. Eddy believed it was intended to be a four -lane road. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design firm representing both the Solenberger and Bridgeforth families in the UDA expansion request, stated that during discussions with the CPPS, they believed the language pertaining to the road network, particularly the Rt. 37 interchange, was a little too rigid and might make conformance to the Comprehensive Plan difficult. Mr. Wyatt said that they have proposed a somewhat softer language, which was included in the Commission's agenda. He said their biggest concern with the Rt. 37 interchange was not their desire to participate, but the fact that it goes across Rt. 37 onto land that is outside of the study area. He suggested that attempting to acquire properties, and to have the property owners responsible for setting forth the process to get an access break, may be in excess of the intent of a • Comprehensive Policy Plan. Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Barbara Van Osten, asked if the proposed improvements to Cedar Creek Grade would extend across the full southern boundary of the Bridgeforth property. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) called for four lanes on Cedar Creek Grade from the City of Winchester out to Rt. 37. Mr. Wyatt remarked that he was a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), serving on the Technical Advisory Committee, and the modeling of this study mirrors the same suggestion that Cedar Creek Grade should have four lanes. He pointed out that the WJELUP recommends four -lanes for Cedar Creek Grade, but does not specifically state the distance on either side.' Commissioner Straub inquired if the improvements to Cedar Creek Grade would be public - private or solely state. Mr. Wyatt stated that there is a clear expectation in the intent of the land use plan and the Comprehensive Policy Plan that not only the internal roads are to be constructed, but improvements to Cedar Creek Grade, as well as improvements to outlying roads. He said the concern expressed by the property owners is the possibility that they may be the ones solely responsible for bringing a solution to the table. Mr. Wyatt suggested that the regionalized benefits, such as a new interchange on Rt. 37 or adding additional lanes to the 37 mainline, should be a cooperative effort between the City, the County, VDOT, and the property owners. Commissioner Thomas inquired if VDOT had commented on another interchange. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that although he could not respond on behalf of VDOT, the current MPO studies are identifying this future interchange. Mr. Wyatt added that the policy committee of the MPO called for Jubal Early Drive with a new interchange as one of their recommendations. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1512 Minutes of May 4, 2005 E L • speak: Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to Mr. R.J. Turner, Back Creek District, stated that he and his wife owned property at the northeast comer, south of Cedar Creek Grade. Mr. Turner said that he understood that the UDA was originally supposed to have 2.3 houses per acre; he said the UDA Study currently in progress may suggest as many, as three houses per acre. Mr. Turner said that he was surprised this evening to hear that it is going to be four houses per acre in the WJELUP. Furthermore, Mr. Turner said that last year, three of his clients applied in June for inclusion into the UDA and were rejected. Mr. Turner was puzzled as to why this request was now being discussed. Mr. Turner added that Cedar Creek Grade is so unique that it is becoming a tourist attraction; he asked about the possibility of establish a green area on the north side of Cedar Creek Grade, perhaps 100 feet, to create a buffer. Ms. Abbe Gordon, owner of property within the WJELUP, asked for someone to point out her house on the display map and tell her how close the proposed four -lane road would be to her home. Chairman DeHaven explained to Ms. Gordon that this was a conceptual plan; therefore, the final location of the road had not yet been determined. No other citizens wished to speak and Chairman DeHaven closed the the meeting. Chairman DeHaven believed that UDA -style development was the highest parcels. He said the transportation issues were a concern, however, many good solutions I Chairman DeHaven said that preliminary discussions with VDOT have indicated that appro) would be difficult at this time. He said this leads him to believe that a more immediate sought and any development that occurs within this area will need to contribute. Howeve solution, it seemed the north-south connection between Cedar Creek and extended JL accomplished. Chairman DeHaven believed that all of the possible solutions needed to be the specific paragraph on transportation, he said the only basic difference between the 1 applicant's is that the applicant is separating the interchange issue from the other transportat DeHaven said that he preferred to use the applicant's suggested wording, dated April 4, 21 of id best use for these ve been proposed. for the interchange lution needs to be for the immediate Ll Early could be irsued. Regarding 'PS's text and the i issues. Chairman Members of the Commission were divided in their view on which transportation text they preferred to see within the WJELUP. Some strongly favored the wording produced by the CPPS because it clearly stated that transportation impacts must be mitigated and the interchange needed to be included in that mitigation. They argued that transportation mitigation is the main issue for development in the rural areas. Other Commission members believed the wording proposed by the applicant was reasonable and should be implemented. They argued that it would be impossible to build a development with this amount of homes and mitigate traffic impacts by 100 %. Some Commissioners suggested that the County Attomeg should review the text, while others believed the City of Winchester needed to contribute to the interchange. Furthermore, some members of the Commission did not like the idea of placing additional land in the UDA while the committee was in the middle of a UDA Study; they believed the UDA Study should be completed before this request was considered. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1513 Minutes of May 4, 2005 ME • Discussion of the Tasker Woods Land Use Plan ( TWLUP); the TWLUP identifies future land uses and a transportation plan and could result in extension of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). The study area includes approximately 183 acres and is bounded by Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) to the east, Tasker Road (Rt. 642) to the south, Macedonia Church Road to the north, and Macedonia Church Road and the portion of White Oak Road between Macedonia Church Road and Tasker Road (Rt. 642) to the west. The TWLUP is in the Shawnee Magisterial District. No Action Required At This Time Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, stated that the staff had received a request by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A) to include land within the Tasker Woods area into the Urban Development Area (UDA). Ms. Eddy said that the Board of Supervisors, at their February 9, 2005 meeting, diiected the Planning Commission to establish a land use plan and recommendations regarding the inclusion of the requested 89 acres of land in the Tasker Woods area into the UDA. She said that while the Board of Supervisors I resolution directing the study included only two parcels, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered it reasonable to study the entire area, of approximately 183 acres, bounded by Tasker Road, Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), and the current 2004 UDA boundary. She said the proposals, collectively called the Tasker Woods Land Use Plan ( TWLUP), would form an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, if adopted. Ms. Eddy next described the elements of the TWLUP for the Commission. Ms. Eddy added that during the CPPS meeting on April 11, 2005, CPPS members were agreeable to the mix of uses on the sites owned by the applicant; they also agreed that commercial uses were appropriate south of the intermittent stream as these sites were adjacent to commercial/industrial land on Tasker • Road. She said that no agreement was reached, however, on the small parcels north of the intermittent stream along Rt. 522. Some of the members believed these sites could be residential, even multiifamily, while still others believed the sites could be industrial or commercial. She said that no consensus among the CPPS members was reached, and the small parcels along Rt. 522, north of the intermittent stream, are shown in white; i.e., no future land use designation Ms. Eddy continued, stating that the proposed land use plan includes a mix of residential and commercial uses; it proposes that the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) be extended to cover all parcels designated as residential and commercial, approximately 153 acres of the study area; and it also proposes that the UDA be extended to cover only the areas identified for residential use, approximately 57 acres. She said the CPPS considered this request at their meetings on March 14 and April 11; at the meeting of April 11, the CPPS recommended approval of the TWLUP. , Commissioner Morris inquired if the staff had heard from any of the property owners along Rt. 522 about whether they would like to be included in the UDA. Ms. Eddy stated that she has heard from some property owners and several were present this evening. Mr. Clay Athey, representing Alden LLC, came forward to introduce himself and Mr. Allen Hudson. Mr. Athey provided the Commission with some history of their property and how it evolved to become a part of the TWLUP. He reported that in consideration of the growing congregation at the Macedonia United Methodist Church, they will not request industrial uses across the street from the church; the commercial uses will continue in an area below the stream, across from Mr. Hudson's other commercial properties. Mr. Athey said they have done considerable work on their proposed transportation system and the improvements planned will not require a new interchange. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1514 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -10- • Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. David Lear, a property owner along Rt. 522, requested that his property be included in the SWSA. He said that his property adjoins the proposed future housing; he pointed out all of the surrounding areas that are currently served. Mr. George Bagley, a property owner located to the south of the intersection of Rt. 522 and Macedonia Church Road, said that he moved to this location 20 years ago into what he thought would be his retirement home. He said he did not have any objections to the overall plan being proposed. He proceeded to tell the Commission, however, how his home and property were affected by the widening of Rt. 522 and then the improvements on Macedonia Church Road. Mr. Bagley thought the TWLUP called for Macedonia Church Road to be four lanes and that is where he had a problem; he asked if a traffic study had been done to justify that recommendation. Mr. Bagley was concerned because all of his landscaping would, once again, be demolished, as well as a wall he had constructed. Mr. Bagley said that he went through seven years of very irritating times dealing with VDOT and all of the construction and earth moving on his property with the Rt. 522 widening and Macedonia Church Road improvements. The possibility of more truck traffic noise from Macedonia Church Road, in addition to the noise from Rt. 522, would only add to the disturbance that Mr. Bagley said he had to endure. Mr. Jim Sumption stated that he farmed a 57 -acre portion of this study area for a number of years. Mr. Sumption said that he was not aware of a proposal to four -lane Macedonia Church Road; in fact, his parents and grandparents are buried in the cemetery there and he would be very upset if a four lane road was to go through there. • Another citizen came forward and stated that she struggled for over a year to build a house on her five acres. She was distressed to learn about the possibility that five homes could be constructed on the lot directly behind her. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. with PHR&A, the design and engineering firm representing the owner of the two properties in this application, explained that White Oak Road, through Canter Estates, was built as a two -lane section, with turning lanes at the intersections and roadside ditches, and this! is exactly what is envisioned for Macedonia Church Road. He said it would bean improvement over existing conditions; however, the primary improvement would certainly shift away from the cemetery and the church as it went forward. Commissioner Thomas believed the uses proposed for this property were appropriate in this area. However, because the LUP did not include all of the properties between Tasker Road and Rt. 522 (white areas on the plan), he considered this proposal to be incomplete and he was against further processing of it until a consolidated plan could be established and evaluated on all issues. Commissioner Thomas said that if this plan moves forward, the County is, by default, telling property owners they will be surrounded by high - density residential, whether they want it or not. His reasoning was based on the buffers required for commercial development; he said it would render those properties undevelopable, except for residential. Commissioner Thomas was adamant about planning for the whole area to ensure an efficient road plan, adequate water and sewage, drainage, and the protection of wetlands. He stated that unless the plan is for the entire area, he would vote against it. Other Commission members agreed. While other Commissioners said they were not in favor of leaving areas of the LUP without a designated use, they were hesitant to assign either commercial or residential use without a specific proposal from • an applicant or a consensus from the committee on what the use would be. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1515 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -11- Commissioner Wilmot said she had recommended during the CPPS meeting that this area of the . LUP not be designated for a particular use at this time and to allow the properties to be studied more thoroughly. Commissioner Wilmot said that in her experience, designating land for commercial use to prevent houses from being constructed was the worst possible reason to make land commercial. She also expressed concern for the landowners in this area who may not be aware of the discussions taking place. j Mr. Clay Athey returned to the podium and raised concerns about the possibility for his application to be held hostage to this entire LUP. He noted that although he initiated the ori ginal application, it was the Planning Staff who made the decision to expand to the Rt. 522 boundary for consideration as a LUP. Mr. Athey said there seemed to be a consensus with his 89 acres and the other acreage to the 'south; however, the uncertainty was only with respect to this particular acreage to the north. He believed the property owners in this area were appropriately being made aware and were becoming involved through the process as it moved forward. Mr. Athey remarked that the existing zoning for these property owners will not change; only the potential future land use planning was the focus of discussion. Both Commissioner Straub and Commissioner Gochenour raised concerns about considering a request for expanding the UDA and the S W SA, while the subcommittee was in the middle of a UDA Study. They wanted to see the UDA Study completed before the Commission considered any further requests to place additional land in the UDA. Ms. Eddy came forward to specifically address the property owners in the 6designated areas (white areas) of the plan. Ms. Eddy assured these property owners that this was not a proposal to change the zoning of their properties. She added that this was solely a discussion item at this time and there would be additional opportunities to become involved. She urged any property owners to get in touch with her for information and, in addition, she would gladly forward any and all comments to the Board of Supervisors. 0 Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Or( Residential Performance (RP) District, Section 165 -64, Recreation Facilities, to recreational facilities for housing types with lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet. No Action Required At This Time Article VI, waivers of Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), at their meeting of March 24, 2005, discussed a request from Greenway Engineering for an amendment to the zoning ordinance for the allowance of a waiver of the community center requirement for single - family small lot subdivisions containing less than 50 lots. Mr. Cheran stated that the DRRS was in favor of this proposed ordinance change, with the discussion centering on the number of lots and how an equivalent recreational value could be demonstrated. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering stated that this subject began to be discussed with the submittal of their age - restricted project entitled, Westbury Commons. Mr. Wyatt said that the issue was whether or not it was appropriate for an 11 -unit community to have a community center building because the responsibility for the maintenance of the facility would probably exceed the capabilities of the residents of the subdivision. Mr. Wyatt said that if the community center requirement is waived, the development will still have • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1516 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -12- to provide a recreational dollar equivalent in another fashion. • Commission members asked what other kinds of amenities could be substituted for the community center. Mr. Wyatt said the proposed ordinance provides considerable flexibility. He said that one option would be to eliminate the meeting facility and replace it with some other desired recreational amenities, such as walking trails, gazebos, intensive landscaping, etc; or, it could be a split, where a portion of the money would be provided to the County's Parks and Recreation Program and a portion of the money used for on -site amenities for the proposed development. Commission members were in favor of allowing a recreational facility waiver to be pursued for small lot subdivisions and they supported this proposed amendment as presented. Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24C, Lot Requirements, regarding waivers of public street requirements for age- restricted communities. No Action Required At This Time Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, staled that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), at its meeting of March 24, 2005, discussed a request from Greenway Engineering to amend the subdivision ordinance to allow a waiver of the public street requirements in age - restricted communities, regardless of the housing types. Mr. Cheran reported that the DRRS supported the proposed amendment with the recommendation that private streets be built to the Virginia Department of • Transportation (V DOT) standards. Mr. Cheran explained that the proposed waiver would apply only to proffered age - restricted communities and would include all of the listed housing types. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering stated that the need for this text amendment came about because of the increasing numbers of age - restricted communities being developed in the area and the desire of the residents of those communities to have gated facilities for security reasons. Mr. Wyatt said that while the ordinance allows private streets in the R5 District, and the flexibility to request a private street system exists in the R4 District, the opportunity does not exist in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District Mr. Wyatt explained that a public street element is required in the RP District, which prevents an RP community from being gated. He said the ordinance states that all lots within an RP subdivision must be within 500' of a state - maintained road or the Planning Commission may grant a waiver for up to 800' from a state - maintained road. Mr. Lawrence suggested that the amendment language specifically include the term, "proffered" age - restricted community in order to guarantee that the County is granting a waiver for this specific type of community. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the wording describing required VDOT standards for road construction specifically state, "vertical structural section," rather than just "cross section" so there is no misunderstanding about what it expected. Commission members supported the concept of the amendment and commented that the opportunity for a waiver in some of the other districts will probably need to be considered. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1517 Minutes of May 4, 2005 -13- • OTHER VIRGINIA CITIZENS PLANNING ASSOCIATION (VCPA) Commissioner Morris announced that the Virginia Citizens Planning Association (VCPA) will be sponsoring the Certified Planning Commissioners Program again this year. In addition, VCPA will be offering for the first time, on May 31, 2005, a one -day program entitled, "The Legal Foundations of Defensible Planning and Zoning Practices." He explained that the program will be exploring a variety of topics, including recent Supreme Court decisions regarding zoning and planning, and issues considered by the Virginia General Assembly. Commissioner Morris said that if anyone is interested in seeking further information, to please contact the Planning Staff. Chairman DeHaven announced the official appointment of Commissioner the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS). ADJOURNMENT Paige Manuel to No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, S. DeHaven, Jr., Secretary w Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1518 Minutes of May 4, 2005