Loading...
PC_03-15-06_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 March 15, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice Perkins, Planner I1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the February 1, 2006 Planing Conuuission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Reeulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 02/23/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed signs and recreational units in small - lot developments. Conunissioner Thomas said the small -lot development amendment will come before the Planning Commission within the next month; he said the sign issue will take much more discussion. L Frederick County Planing Commission Page 1699 Minutes of March 15 2006 -2- 0 CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 902 -06 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR &A) to rezone 1.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to HE (Higher Education) District with proffers. The properties are located on the east and west sides of Tulane Drive (Rt. 797), approximately 650 feet north of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50). The property is also identified with P.I.N.s 64 -A -109 and 64 -A- 110 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers and a Caveat Commissioner Ours said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning application, due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the properties are located within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and within the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. He said the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan recognizes the institutional character of the university in this area and, therefore, the HE (Higher Education) land use designation would be an appropriate application to the properties in this general area, with the appropriate recognition of the adjoining residential subdivision. Referring to a letter from VDOT, dated May 2, 2005, Mr. Ruddy said that VDOT recommended that the applicant proffer all access via Tulane Drive as opposed to the Price Drive location. He stated that no additional measurable transportation impacts are anticipated from the development of this site. Mr. Ruddy said that in recognition of the adjacent residential subdivision and in order to ensure that the anticipated HE (Higher Education) land uses are appropriately integrated with the adjacent residential land uses, the zoning ordinance enables the Planning Commission to require distance buffers and landscape screening. He noted that staff has previously encouraged the applicant to be proactive with regards to any landscaping and screening that could be applied to this property in anticipation of any future long -term land uses above and beyond what might be on the property today. Mr. Ruddy added that the proffer package submitted with this rezoning contains only one proffer which seeks to address access to the site; however, it does not appear to limit site access in any real fashion and does not address the comment provided by VDOT. He recommended a more desirable approach may be to limit the traffic from future uses of this site to Tulane Drive in order to assure that Price Drive remains residential in character. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., a member of the Board of Trustees at Shenandoah University and a member of the university's building committee, came forward and introduced himself and Patrick Sowers with Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR &A), who would be presenting this rezoning to the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1' /UU Minutes of March 15, 2006 -3- • Mr. Patrick Sowers explained that the property in question was cut out of the larger 114 -acre tract in the 1980's and is not a portion of Pembridge Heights, which begins with the lot immediately north; he said that none of the restrictive covenants of Pembridge Heights would apply to this parcel. Mr. Sowers stated that the size of this property limits the intensity of the use for the property and, furthermore, the ultimate use of the property has not yet been decided. He said that once the use has been decided, appropri ate screening could be determined and addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Sowers added that the current access is via Tulane Drive with a four-way intersection on Route 50 East. Commissioner Kriz asked why the applicant doesn't proffer out the entrance to Price Drive. Mr. Sowers replied that since the use has not yet been determined, the applicant would like to maintain as much flexibility as possible. Mr. Sowers stated that any commercially- designed entrances will have to be approved by VDOT and, if VDOT chose not to have an entrance of this type on Price Drive, then it would not be allowed. Commissioner Oates inquired why the B2 parcel immediately to the west, which is owned by the University, was not a part of the rezoning to the HE District. Mr. Sowers replied that because the B2 Zoning enables parking capabilities that could relate well with higher education -type uses, it was not necessary to rezone that particular area, however, the RP area needed to be rezoned. Commissioner Thomas commented that any type of educational building, such as a laboratory building, a dormitory, or a recreational facility, could be placed on this property after it was rezoned to HE District, since there were no proffers restricting its use. Commissioner Thomas did not think a multi -story college dormitory would be compatible with the residential area and he asked if Shenandoah University had looked at what uses would be compatible. Commissioner Thomas also questioned why the applicant was hesitant about proffering out the Price Drive access. Mr. Maddox assured the Commission that Shenandoah University would • be a good neighbor; he said the site, by scale, is limited to what can be put there. Mr. Maddox added that there is no near term need to access Price Drive, but they wanted to maintain their flexibility for whatever the future might bring. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Christopher Miller, a resident at 106 Price Drive, was concerned about whether the proposed use would be compatible with the existing residences and how the proposed use might affect property values. He recognized that the college has been an asset to the area, but he did not think a dormitory would be appropriate. Mr. Miller said it was his understanding that the house on the property was used as a hospital back in the Civil War years; he said that some of the structure is comprised of logs. He suggested the historical value be investigated before the structure is tom down. In addition, Mr. Miller spoke about a lot on Price Drive that was turned down for a rezoning a short time ago, he complained the property was an eyesore because of the large dirt piles it contained for the past six to eight months. No other citizen wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and stated that a good number of the concepts considered for this site included keeping the house structure and building on it. Mr. Maddox said the proposed uses considered are light uses and the intent is not to construct five -story buildings, etc. He said the use of the property will be coming back to the Planning Commission in the form of a master development plan revision Chairman Wilmot commented that the ordinance calls for landscaping and buffers. Mr. Maddox • agreed that landscaping between residential and HE is a requirement and if a future use needs additional landscaping, they will provide it. He said the idea is for the use to blend into the community. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1701 Minutes of March 15, 2006 -4- • Commissioner Thomas had questions regarding the proposed width of Tulane Drive through this area and, in addition, he asked about the timing for development of the two lots in relation to the extension of Tulane Drive. Mr. Maddox explained the transportation plan for the area; he said they've planned on Tulane being a 40 -foot, three -lane road through this area with a center turn lane and two through lanes. He added that the road work has been done along the frontage of the property. Chairman Wilmot recognized another citizen in the audience who wished to speak. Mr. John Haines, a resident at 114 Price Drive, questioned whether Shenandoah University would carry through with planting a screen; he said Shenandoah University promised to plan three rows of trees along his property line, but they only planted two rows. He was opposed to allowing access to Price Drive. Commissioner Mohn asked the staff what the buffer requirement would consist of between HE and RP. Mr. Ruddy replied there was no buffer requirement specified in the ordinance today. Mr. Ruddy said there are buffer matrixes which deal with commercial land against residential, but there is nothing specified for the HE; it is up to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Corrunissioner Morris made a motion for a recommendation of approval with a caveat that expresses the Planning Commission's desire to see access to Price Drive restricted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application 902 -06 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR &A) to rezone 1.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to HE (Higher Education) • District with proffers and with the Planning Commission's desire to have access to Price Drive restricted. (Commissioners Ours and Light abstained from voting; Commissioners Unger and Watt were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Site Plan 982 -05 of McClung -Logan Equipment for the development of 4.9656 acres for industrial use; the property is located in the Stonewall Industrial Park, Lot 24, Kentmere Court, off of McGhee Road, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. No Action Required Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the McClung -Logan Equipment site plan is being presented to the Planning Commission for informational purposes due to its implications on the planned route for Route 37. Ms. Perkins explained that the plans for Stonewall Industrial Park and the McClung -Logan property do not accommodate the planned route for Route 37 and the anticipated right -of -way will possibly cover a large portion of this site. She added that staff met with the engineer in December to determine if any of the buildings could be shifted on the site to lessen the impact of the planned right -of -way; however, the engineer stated they could not shift the buildings. Planner Perkins stated that the staff is only seeking input from the Planning Commission and no action is required. Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded • to the Board of Supervisors. She noted that the site plan is represented by Mr. Denny Dunlap of Triad Engineering. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1702 Minutes of March 15, 2006 — 5 — Plamring Commission members had questions for their legal counsel on whether any restriction in the use or access of this property directed by the Planning Commission because of a planned transportation is route could be construed as a "taking" of land. Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, legal counsel for the Planning Commission, pointed out that, at this point in time, there is no specificity as to when Route 37 will be started nor is a definitive route officially identified. Under these circumstances, Mr. Ambrogi believed it would ultimately be up to a court to decide whether any action would be considered as a "taking." He added that the staff is presenting this to the Commission for informational purposes. Commissioner Mohn asked when the lot was created and Ms. Perkins estimated it was created in 2005. Commissioner Mohn observed that the path of the roadway, the preferred alternative, was indeed known during this time frame and the County approved the subdivision with the road going through it. He said the site plan has now been submitted and it is being brought to everyone's attention; he said he was not sure how the Commission was to advise the Board, since the subdivision was approved with that knowledge. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, responded that Route 37 has been on the books for about ten years now at the "Alternative C" location and it has only been in recent months that development proposals within the Route 37 corridor, on by -right zoned property, are coming in. He said that in working with die County Administration's legal staff, it was decided that anytime a subdivision or a site plan comes before staff that is in a by -right situation, the staff is going to take it through the public process so the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors can be aware of what is being proposed within the Route 37 alignment. Mr. Lawrence stated that this subdivision was the first to raise significant concern. He explained that the policy established by County Administration calls for all affected subdivisions presented to the staff to be reviewed by the Commission and the Board; and furthermore, all site plans for property within the corridor will be reviewed solely by the Planning Commission. He said that since this particular site did not get a subdivision review, the staff opted to inform the Commission and the Board. Mr. Lawrence explained the goal of this effort is to make everyone aware, • so no one is surprised that something is in the corridor when the time comes to build the road. Commissioner Morris had several points to make: First, he said that no one knows how long it will be before the first bit of ground is turned for Rt. 37; he said it could be a long time. Second, he. wondered how long a business constructed here could exist before it becomes non- existent, either in its current form or as a renovation or a rebuilt structure. Third, he speculated that if someone knowingly builds in an area where Route 37 is going to be constructed, the potential outcome of litigation might possibly be a "taking" or an eminent domain situation. Commissioner Oates believed it was time for the County, and the Board of Supervisors in particular, to specifically define the true survey centerline of "Alternative C; adopt it, and stick with it. He commented that there is a broad area that Route 37 could or couldn't be constructed within and this building may or may not be in its path. Commissioner Oates believed it was time, since all this has come to light, that the County finally nail down the exact path of Route 37; he recommended that the Board of Supervisors send this to the Transportation Committee and get this issue resolved as soon as possible. Commissioner Molm wanted to take Commissioner Oates' recommendation a step further and recommend that the Board consider placing Route 37 on the Capital Improvements Plan, so the County will be able to focus some investment; he also agreed a right -of -way needed to be identified and the County should begin working towards acquisition, in fairness to all of the property owners and future users of property who might be in its path. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1703 Minutes of March 15, 2006 -6- It was Commissioner Light's opinion that there is a by -right use on this property for the present time and the immediate future; he said that if someone wants to use the property, they should be able to because • there is nothing officially on the books delineating anything else. He said this was no different than any other parcel in the County traversing RA where someone is building a house; he said they have a by -right, they have the ability to use it, and there is no plan. Commissioner Light did not think this application should be held up; in fact, he believed that if there were a designated centerline, it would complicate matters more. He added that if Route 37 goes through there, VDOT is going to have to buy the property and take it, just like all the other properties in the path of Route 37. No action was needed or taken by the Planning Commission on this discussion item. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS: ARTICLE IX REVISIONS Mr. Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission established an Ad -Hoc Committee, consisting of members of the Planning Commission, to review and evaluate the Commission's bylaws. He said the first item identified by the Ad -Hoc Committee is the provision of a 30 -day notice before making any changes to the Planning Commission Bylaws. Mr. Lawrence explained that for tonight, the Commission will officially go on record that at the April 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission will have a proposal before them to modify the process by which its bylaws are amended. Mr. Lawrence said this simply means that tonight's notification is starting the clock to follow the bylaws and when the Commission meets again next month, the Ad -Hoc Committee will have a proposal that explains how the Commission can modify their bylaws. • This process was acceptable to the members of the Commission. 2006 PLANNING PROJECTS PRIORITIZATION Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, reported that as a part of the Planning Commission's 2006 Annual Retreat, members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors were given an opportunity to prioritize long -range and short -range planning projects for the upcoming year. Mr. Lawrence said that staff has tabulated the responses and has provided the tabulation total to the Commission. Mr. Lawrence reviewed the priorities with the Commission for consensus or modification. In addition to the priority list, he said the agenda package also contains the Planning Department's 2006 Work Program and a retreat summary. Commissioner Morris commented that under both the long -range projects and the current planning projects, it calls for a complete comprehensive review and revision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He believed contractual support may need to be solicited because of the major undertaking involved with these projects. Mr. Lawrence replied that funding is not available to contract the work in the current fiscal year, nor the next fiscal year. He said the last revision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan was in 2003; he noted some modifications were made over the previous few years with the Stephens City Land Use Plan and the ongoing RA C 1 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1704 Minutes of March 15, 2006 -l- and UDA Studies. Mr. Lawrence said the goal, upon completion and closure of the UDA and RA Studies, is to go back through the Comprehensive Policy Plan and incorporate these small studies and possibly, along with that • addition, go through and make sure the capital facilities and demographics are all up to date as well. He agreed, however, that an overhaul of the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances would require outside assistance. Comments were made by members about the zoning and subdivision ordinances supporting the Comprehensive Policy Plan and that the Comprehensive Plan should be revised first. Members commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan has gotten way out ahead of the zoning ordinance; they didn't believe the existing, outdated zoning ordinance allowed the Commission to implement the Comprehensive Policy Plan in its fullest form. Mr. Lawrence said that if the current UDA Study and the Urban Village Concept are successful and ultimately adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, that implementation will trigger the need to examine the zoning and subdivision ordinances because of the complexity of the issues; he said a new zoning district will have to be created. Commissioner Mohn commented about some of the outdated information in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, noting that some of the demographic data and projections are based on 1980s data, so the most current information about the community is not being published. He said it was difficult to start fitting together long -range visions when data is outdated. He also agreed that the zoning ordinance needs considerable work to keep up with where the Comprehensive Policy Plan is today; he said that both are huge jobs. Commissioner Oates said he would like to see Project 49, the GIS database, under long -range projects, ranked a little higher because all of the information gathered depends on that system working efficiently and accurately. • Commissioner Ours was pleased to see the corridor improvements design standards back on the priority list. The Chairman suggested greater utilization of the County's web site for distribution of information. OTHER FREDERICK COUNTY UNIFICATION PROJECT PUBLIC MEETINGS Commissioner Kriz reminded everyone about die two remaining meetings of the Winchester - Frederick County Unification Project's Public Opinion/ Public Input Discussion. Those meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, at Millbrook High School, at 7:00 p.m. and Thursday, March 23, at James Wood High School, at 7:00 p.m. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1705 Minutes of March 15, 2006 CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY PUBLIC MEETINGS . Commissioner Light announced that the Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) will have a public informational meeting on April 3, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room in the County Administration Building, to provide presentations and opportunities to answer questions about the use of conservation easements in Frederick County; he said that all landowners are invited to attend. Commissioner Light added that the CEA also has a brochure available on conservation easements in the County; COMPREHENSIVE PLANS & PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Chairman Wilmot was pleased to make the appointment of Mr. H. Wellington Jones, the Engineer /Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, to the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS). Chairman Wilmot stated that Mr. Jones brought Mr. Skip Braden, the Sanitation Authority's Vice Chairman, to the meeting and Mr. Braden will act as Mr. Jones' alternate. Chairman Wilmot also appointed Mr. Al Omdorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration of Frederick County Public Schools, to the CPPS. She commented that the CPPS is fortunate to have these representatives, who provide excellent input in the discussions. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the meeting • adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Wilmot, Chairman Secretary C , J Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1706 Minutes of March 15, 2006