Loading...
PC_07-05-06_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 July 5, 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; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER ® Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 06/29/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS had three items on their agenda: First, the DRRS discussed the length of roads going into subdivisions in the RA areas; he said there have been complaints the roads are too short and can't be made to work. He said the second item discussed was setbacks in the RA District and third, the subcommittee discussed signage in multi- tenant complexes. He said there have been a considerable number of problems with signs in Frederick County. Transportation Committee — 06/26/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed a possible alternative to Route 37 around the Stonewall Industrial Park; they discussed impact fees in the Rural Areas; and they discussed the Six -Year Road Plan. 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1796 Minutes of July 5, 2006 -2- Ll CITIZEN CO MMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item not on this evening's agenda and the following person came forward to speak. Mr. Charles Harbaugh and Mr. Charles Wine stepped forward to speak with the Commission about a trucking operation across the street from their homes on South Hayfield Road. Mr. Harbaugh told the Commission that nothing has been done about the trucking operation since the last time he spoke with the Commission on June 21, 2005. Mr. Harbaugh added that the Zoning Administrator is allowing one truck; however, he did not believe even one truck was permitted under the Code. Mr. Charles Wine said three trucks have been parked across the street for a long time; he said two of the trucks are parked there most of the time. Mr. Wine said it won't be long before he is pulling in reefers and they run two, three, and four days at a time. He added that the noise is irritating. PUBLIC HEARING An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165 -64, Recreational Facilities. This amendment would enable a waiver of required community centers in single - family, small -lot subdivisions. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that this proposed change would allow a waiver opportunity for the community center requirement in all single - family, small -lot subdivisions with less than 50 lots, provided an equivalent of three age- appropriate recreational units for each 30 dwelling units can be demonstrated. He said this amendment was presented to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item at their May 10, 2006 and the Board forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Commissioner Morris inquired what type of equivalent age - appropriate recreational unit the staff would envision for these subdivisions. Mr. Cheran said the possibilities could include a picnic shelter, walking trails, or even cash for off -site use. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward to address the Commission, as he had made the initial request for this amendment. Mr. Wyatt said the reason for proposing this comes down to an issue of yield, i.e. how many dwelling units can sustain a community center building. He said the amendment provides the County with the opportunity to have a developer come forward with a proposal as a substitute to the community center building. He said that if the proposal is not satisfactory to the Board, the waiver can be denied; however, it does allow for more innovative recreational amenities, particularly for smaller lots. In response to Commissioner Morris' comment, Mr. Wyatt said there could be a substitute recreational package which could include things that were age- appropriate and more likely to be used by the residents. He added that the value could meet or exceed that of a community building or it could be that value plus cash for off -site. Mr. Wyatt said that in the past, they have solicited input from the Director of Parks and Recreation as to the types of amenities they thought were appropriate and the values they thought were appropriate. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1797 Minutes of July 5, 2006 -3- • Commissioner Morris said he was still unclear about how the values are placedon the equivalent recreational units. Mr. Wyatt replied that recreational values are determined by the Department of Parks and Recreation. He said the current value is $25,000 per recreational unit; therefore, for a single - family small -lot project, a community center is equal to three values of a recreational unit, or $75,000 for each 30 dwelling units. Mr. Wyatt explained this was how the value was initiated and then the Parks and Recreation Department will assist in working out the best recreational package. He added that the value must either meet or exceed. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165 -64, Recreational Facilities. This amendment would enable a waiver of required community centers in single - family, small -lot subdivisions. YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Thomas, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Oates, Triplett, Wilmot (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) \J PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan 004 -06 for Brookland Manor, submitted by Dewberry, to enable the development of a 68 -unit, single - family attached (townhouse) residential project on 8.83 acres. The properties are located on Brookland Lane (Rt. 658),1,700 feet south of the intersection of Brookland Lane and Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 54-2 -5 and 54 -2-6 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this master development plan, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Bernard S. Suchicital reported that the proposed density of the project is 7.69 dwelling units per acre and will include two tot lots, an eight -foot wide paved trail, and a separate 1'/. -acre out -lot for the historic Brookland House. Mr. Suchicital said the development will be accessed by Brookland Lane and will have a projected impact of 588 additional vehicle trips per day. He added that the applicant has agreed to address the issue regarding the sidewalk along Brookland Lane. Mr. David Frank with Dewberry came forward to represent the owner of the property, Mr. Dave Holiday, Mr. Frank said there were some physical constraints on Brookland Lane with steep slopes coming down . into the property and the adjacent Windstone property. He said it will be difficult to construct sidewalks on both sides of Brookland Lane. Mr. Frank said VDOT has acquiesced to not needing sidewalks on both sides and the applicant plans to make some off -site improvements to match the sidewalk funds that would have been required Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1798 Minutes of July 5, 2006 ME on Brookland Lane. • Referring to the comments from Public Works regarding the wetlands delineation, Commissioner Oates asked if the study had been completed. Mr. Frank said the study has been completed and the consultant has stated that all the wetlands were contained within the stream bank and stream bed. Mr. Frank said no wetlands will be disturbed. Commissioner Mohn asked the staff if the arrangement worked out with the sidewalk issue is satisfactory to the staff. Mr. Suchicital replied that staff had the understanding that the applicant would build the sidewalk according to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144 -18A, which calls for all streets to have sidewalks on both sides of the road on collector, arterial, and local streets. Mr. Suchicital said that if the applicant chooses to have sidewalks on only one side of Brookland Lane, it will be against the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Mohn inquired if there was a provision for a waiver and staff replied no. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commission members discussed the sidewalk issue as it was a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Mohn said there was clearly a problem, if there is an ordinance requirement and it is not being provided by the applicant. He said the applicant certainly must satisfy VDOT's requirements, but they also must satisfy the County's ordinances. He added that if there is not a provision for a waiver or some other alternative, then the applicant must agree to install the sidewalk as required by the Code. Mr. Frank returned to the podium and stated that it was clearly the intention of this plan to deal with the topographic constraints. He said if the Subdivision Ordinance does not allow for this kind of waiver or • this type of topographic consideration, then they will be required to put sidewalks on both sides within the right - of- -way provided. Mr. Frank said the applicant would be willing to do this. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #04 -06 for Brookland Manor, submitted by Dewberry, to enable the development of a 68 -unit, single - family attached (townhouse) residential project with the stipulation that sidewalks are provided along both sides of Brook Lane. (Note: Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Consideration of a request by Todd Shenk for a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, for an exception to Article V, Design Standards, Section 144 -31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3), minor rural subdivisions, to enable a family division of a parcel of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. The properties are located on Sherwood Pines Lane and are identified with P.I.N.s 6 -8 -2 -1 and 6- 8-2-3 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1799 Minutes of July S, 2006 -5- • Commissioner Oates stated he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this waiver request due to a possible conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 144 -32(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance to enable a family subdivision of land on a right -of- way less than 50 feet. Mr. Cheran said the applicant, Mr. Todd Shenk, has stated that an existing 20 -foot right - of -way provides access to the properties where the proposed family lots will be located. Mr. Cheran also stated the waiver would enable the creation of two family lots as deeded to Mr. Shenk's wife and daughter. He added that the agenda packet includes letters from adjoining property owners; two letters are in support of the applicant and one is in support of the subdivision of land, but not the right -of -way. Mr. Todd Shenk, the applicant, stated that he has the necessary acreage to do a family division. He explained that the spouse option will give him the opportunity of giving the land to any one of his four children, should it be necessary for them to build; therefore, it does not have to be in one of their names in particular. In addition, Mr. Shenk said he planned on continuing to farm his property; he is not planning on selling the property. Mr. Shenk said the only reason he needs to get Board approval is because of the existing 300 -feet of 20 -foot right -of -way, Sherwood Pines Lane, which is between his 50 -foot right -of -way and Middle Fork Road, State Route 695. Mr. Shenk explained that his neighbor's right -of -way, Sherwood Pines Lane, is only 20 -feet wide and has orchard trees on both sides. Mr. Shenk said his neighbor has no problem with some future use of the right -of -way by two more houses; his only concern is that if he deeded Mr. Shenk the 50 -foot right -of- way, which would have nullified the affect of coming before the Commission and Board, then he may have someone who would want to push his orchard trees out. Mr. Shenk added that the acreage and density of the property will only allow two divisions. • Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of a request by Todd Shenk for a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, for an exception to Article V, Design Standards, Section 144 -31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3), minor rural subdivisions, to enable a family division of a parcel of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) OTHER COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENTS MEETING Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, announced the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 10, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room. He said that Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments are to be considered. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1800 Minutes of July 5, 2006 IM Ib SEWER & WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA) AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) BOUNDARIES MODIFICATIONS Commissioner Oates said he would like to make a motion, based on the Commission's previous meeting of the consideration of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA) boundaries amendment.. Commissioner Oates said he felt several of the areas under consideration could have been moved forward and tabling the entire package until the UDA Study was completed, or further along, would unnecessarily prolong the entire package. Commissioner Oates made a motion to have the SWSA and UDA boundaries amendment areas brought back before the Commission with each area voted on individually and for the Commission to table only the appropriate ones. A discussion ensued about the appropriateness of bringing this item back before the Commission when a vote had already been taken. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence recalled the Board of Supervisors doing something similar in the past; he said this is the first meeting since that previous motion occurred and if a Commission member who voted to support the previous motion wishes to call the question again, they could raise the issue and bring it back. Commissioner Morris seconded Commissioner Oates' motion, because there were areas that were not under dispute. He said he didn't see any reason to hold up the ones which had no questions or conflicts with the CPPA. Commissioner Mohn said he could go along with bringing this item back; however, he wanted to • be sure that all of the individual property owners within each area are specifically notified that they are going to be considered again. Other Commissioners agreed the public should be notified and it should be a public meeting. Some of the Commission members were not in favor of bringing the package back again on the three or four areas that did not have public comments; these members did not believe it was fair to the public, especially if everyone was not notified in the same manner they were previously notified. One Commissioner made the point that if the Commission does not plan to bring this up for reconsideration until after the CPPA review, which has been scheduled for July 10, 2006, then it should be so stated in the motion. He said the issue raised at the previous meeting was the potential conflict between the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments hearing and the Commission's discussion of changing the SWSA and UDA boundaries before the hearing. Commissioner Oates then restated his motion for the consideration of the SWSA and UDA Boundaries Amendments to be brought back to the Commission's neat available meeting after the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments Hearing scheduled for July 10, 2006, allowing enough time for staffto appropriately notify the property owners, and for each area to be considered individually as a public meeting item. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Morris. A member of the Commission asked the Commission's legal counsel for an opinion on whether or not the Planning Commission could reconsider the boundary amendments without notifying the property owners. Mr. Lawrence R Ambrogi, the Commission's legal counsel, said he had some concerns. Mr. Ambrogi asked the Commission to do a brief summary of what was done and the Commission's intentions; he said there may be some case law that could apply to this. Commissioner Oates amended his restated motion by adding that staff will consult legal counsel to make sure all property owners are legally notified, through letters, public airways, or newspapers. Commissioner Morris concurred with the amended and restated motion. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1801 Minutes of July 5, 2006 -7- Commissioner Mohn had a couple points to make regarding the notification and reconsideration. • He said if this comes back for reconsideration in a month's time, he would like to see some analysis and not just an identification of where the areas were that were being considered to be taken out. He suggested some history of the particular area regarding relationships of recent applications to current applications, regardless ofwhat the CPPA process yields in the next couple weeks. Secondly, he thought the public notification needed to go a step further than simply stating that you are in an area that is being considered for a contraction. He recognized it was more work, but thought it was worthwhile to make sure the public totally understands what is happening. He said that more information was better in this case and it was better to err on the side of caution. The vote was as follows: YES (TO RECONSIDER) Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Oates, Morris, Watt, Unger, Wilmot NO: Thomas, Manuel (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours Were absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. • Respectfully submitted, M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric. Lawrence, Secretary \J Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1802 Minutes of July 5, 2006