Loading...
PC_05-03-06_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 May 3, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ 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; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. ® CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Group Commissioner Kriz announced that the first meeting to explain the UDA Study to the public will be held on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, from 7:00 to 9:00 pm., at Greenwood Fire Hall. He said a second meeting will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2006, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m at Aylor Elementary School. Commissioner Kriz said the public is encouraged to attend the meetings to learn about the suggested changes being recommended for the UDA. He said that representatives from the School Board, School Administration, Parks and Recreation, the Planning Department, and subcommittee members will be available for questions. 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1740 Minutes of May 3, 2006 -z- ® Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). 04/27/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed two issues. The first issue was the length of cul -de -sacs in the rural areas (RA). He explained that when the ordinance on cul-de-sacs was developed, it was probably intended to apply only to RP areas and not necessarily the RA areas. However, the same cul -de- sac language was incorporated into the RA areas as well, and this is being studied. Commissioner Thomas said the second issue discussed by the DRRS was recycling in Frederick County. In particular, the DRRS discussed what would be allowed, the approach, and if the Commission should be involved with uses or if this should be left up to the Public Works Department. Transportation Committee Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the possibility of establishing impact fees in Frederick County to pay for road improvements in the rural areas. He said Frederick County's population has reached the qualifying level whereby the County may charge developers with impact fees or continue to accept proffers. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) ® Commissioner Light reported that the CEA voted to send forward to the Board of Supervisors a Memorandum of Understanding with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation which will accompany the first conservation easement application. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #04 -06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR &A) to rezone 33.61 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a mixed -use commercial and residential project. The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), with road frontage along both roadways. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 55 -A -201 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. • Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1741 Minutes of May 3. 2006 -3- • Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy provided the background information. Ms. Eddy reported that the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), but is not within the limits of any small -area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said this areawas a focus of discussion with the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Group as an area that could possibly be designated as a Neighborhood Center in the future. However, she said the County's current Eastern Long - Range Land Use Plan shows all of the Senseny Road area as residential use with neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of these residential uses. She said the applicant's proposal for commercial zoning on the western end of the site, if developed in a matter complimentary to the surrounding residences, would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, she said the applicant's proposal for multi - family housing in the center of the site provides a transition between the retail portion and the single - family portions of the site. Moving on to transportation issues, Ms. Eddy stated that the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road and Greenwood Road as improved major collectors, which translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section. Ms. Eddy said appropriate features that should be included with this type of road section are raised medians with landscaping, landscaping along the edge ofthe right -of -way, and sidewalks. She reported that the applicant is providing a new lane and a bicycle trail along Senseny Road through his proffer, but does not commit to landscaping within the median, or any landscaping along Greenwood Road or Senseny Road. Ms. Eddy proceeded to review the applicant's other transportation proffers, noting the installation of traffic signalization, turn lanes, and the provision of inter -parcel connectors to surrounding sites. Ms. Eddy next reviewed the applicant's design proffers with the Commission; she said the staff is concerned that the design proffers are somewhat vague and the conceptual drawing lacks detail. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy stated that the County will need assurances that the multi - family units will be compatible with the neighboring single - family homes, which can best be assured through more detailed • design proffers. She said the applicant should also carefully consider road standards and corridor appearance standards for the commercial component concerning: a median on Senseny Road; street trees; placement of buildings closer to the street; and, reduced signage. Mr. Patrick Sowers with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR &A), representing the Orrick Cemetery, Inc. rezoning application, began his presentation by talking about the proposed park area. He said the purpose of having the park open to the public was to include the surrounding communities and foster neighborly connections; he said the land could be dedicated to the County, if that is what is preferred. He commented that the 3.5 -acre park will not on its own meet the open space requirements; he noted that a mixed -use development, such as theirs, will need ten acres of open space. Mr. Sowers next explained the methodology used in their calculations for monetary contributions in their proffer. He explained that this project was unique in that it was a mixed -use, age - restricted development and as a result of the commercial component, this development will pay for itself, he said that 20 years from now, this project will still have a positive net fiscal impact. He added that this methodology is also reflected in the monetary contribution for regional transportation improvements to both Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Using a PowerPoint display, Mr. Sowers next presented the project layout and design details to the Commission. He noted the applicant's intention to use multiple- materials design methods and non- symmetrical massing for their building construction; their intent was to eliminate monolith -type structures and break up massing. He said that under the current ordinance, they cannot rezone to an R4 Mixed Use, because the property does not meet the 100 -acre minimum requirement; however, they still want to bring together the neighborhood, village- center concept. He explained the applicant's intent is to seek an amendment to the ordinance and their preference is to launch a pro- active step by having the design requirements already in place. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1742 Minutes of May 3, 2006 -4- Commissioners asked the applicant if he could use an alternate material or design for the asphalt parking lot. They were concerned not only for the aesthetics of a 12 -14 -acre asphalt parking lot, but also with the run -off that would occur. They asked the applicant about the possibility of using green design principles, such as paving brick with grass in between to allow for water infiltration, or breaking up the solid parking with areas of green strips. Mr. Sowers replied that the number of parking spaces and the curb and gutter requirements in the County's ordinance dictates what they can accomplish with the parking area. Mr. David Harner of Paramount Development Corporation, the commercial developer, said he would be willing to work with the Commission and staff to work out the details of the parking lot and see what could be accomplished under the County's ordinance. Some Commission members were also concerned about having the 3.5 -acre park open to the public, but owned by the homeowners association (HOA). Commissioners questioned the financial ability of an HOA for an age - restricted community to pay large premiums for liability insurance, especially in light of the water feature within the park. Commissioners also questioned whether the park would be a source of conflict between the homeowners and those who live outside the development. Some of the Commissioners suggested that the park area be dedicated to the County. Mr. Earl Armiger, President of Orchard Development Corporation, the residential developer, came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Armiger talked about his company's previous projects, primarily in Maryland and Northern Virginia, and that they specialize in senior housing. He said that many of their projects have won awards. There were some questions from the Commission members about the amount of the monetary ® contribution, in light of what has been previously proffered by other developments. Mr. Sowers responded that in addition to the $475 per unit, they have proffered $1,500 per unit towards transportation improvements. He said the amount proffered was the actual amount projected by the County's new fiscal impact model; he commented that the amount is less than other developments because their project contains 15 8,000 square feet of commercial area. The staff commented that the applicant was accurate in their interpretation of the results. Commissioner Mohn said that while the project may pay for itself from a capital facilities perspective, it won't necessarily pay for road improvements from a regional perspective. Commissioner Mohn focused attention on the fact that one of the County's priorities is getting Senseny Road improved along its entire length through this corridor. Chairman Wilmot asked the applicant about his plans to seek ordinance amendments and the timing of the development. Mr. Sowers said that if the rezoning and master development plan were approved, that would allow site plans for all 22 acres of commercial to be open for use. In addition, any residential uses that are currently permitted by the ordinance would be allowed; for example, the age - restricted single - family housing could be built as the applicant takes the text amendment through the process. He said all of the commercial and some of the residential could come on line before the text amendment is approved. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak; therefore, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Moms asked if there was a community center requirement for this age - restricted community. Mr. Sowers replied that there will be some single - family, small -lot, age- restricted housing and he pointed out the location for the proposed community center to meet the requirement. is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1743 Minutes of May 3, 2006 -5- • Commission members were interested in enhancing the appearance of the County's corridors and they were supportive of the staffs recommendation for street trees and a median on Senseny Road, and street trees along Greenwood Road. Mr. Hamer agreed to work with the staff during the design phase of the project to achieve an acceptable level of streetscape and to show the improvements on the MDP. Some Commissioners were not in favor of the park being open to the public, especially if the HOA had responsibility for maintenance and liability issues. Others were in favor of having the park dedicated to the County and maintained by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The idea of a centrally - located green area being available to the surrounding community was thought to be a good one. Commissioners suggested that before this rezoning goes to the Board of Supervisors, that the applicant meet with the Department of Parks and Recreation to get their input. Members of the Commission also wanted to see a commitment from the applicant on improving the design of the parking lot for appearance and water infiltration. Mr. Hamer said he was willing to work directly with members of the Commission or staff to come up with a solution before the meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning 404 -06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) to rezone 33.61 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for a mixed -use commercial and residential project, with proffers, and with enhanced corridor appearance to include trees along Senseny Road and • Greenwood Road; with a commitment by the applicant to meet with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the 3.5 -acre park; and with a commitment by the applicant to improving the design of the parking lot for appearance and water infiltration. (Note: Commissioner Ours was absent from the meeting.) WORKSESSION SCHEDULED Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, announced a Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for May 11, 2006 at 12:15 to talk about the Rural Transportation Funding Program. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1744 Minutes of May 3, 2006 r ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary CI Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1745 Minutes of May 3 2006