Loading...
PC_02-07-07_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 February 7, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: City of Winchester Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of December 6, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. • Frederick County Planning Commission rage i voo Minutes of February 7, 2007 -z- COMMITTEE REPORTS is Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRSI - 1/25/07 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS re- elected officers, Mr. Roger Thomas as Chairman and Mr. Gregg Unger as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Unger said the DRRS discussed their work priorities for 2007; there are about five to six different items the subcommittee is planning to prioritize and study. He said the sign ordinance is now re- N«itten and will be forwarded to the full Commission soon. Transportation Committee - 1/29/07 Mtg. Commissioner Rriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the Rural Roadways Ranking System and after additional modifications, it will be sent forward to the Board of Supervisors; a recommendation was sent forward to combine the Public- Private Transportation Act of 1995 Policy with the Public - Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 Policy; a report was received from the Metropolitan Planning Organization; articles of interest were distributed and discussed; and the paving of MacDonald Road was also discussed. CITIZEN COMMENTS • Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application #21 -06 of Willow Run, including Master Development Plan 915 -06 for Willow Run, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 359.97 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 1,390 residential units. The properties are located east of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), north of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), and south and west of the City of Winchester. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 53 -A -90, 53 -A -91, 53 -A -92, 53 -A- 92A, 53- A -92B, 53 -A -94, 53 -3 -A, and 63 -A -2A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Seven Items of Modification Recommended for Approval Action - Alternative Buffer and Screening Plans Recommended for Approval Action - Rezoning 921 -06 and Master Development Plan 415 -06 Recommended for Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1967 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -3- Commissioners Mohn and Unger abstained from all discussion and voting, due to a potential conflict of interest. • Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported the background information for the Willow Run Rezoning and Master Development Plan (MDP) applications. Ms. Eddy noted that a staff application briefing for this rezoning was held on December 19, 2006 because of the complexity of the application. She noted that the site is within the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA), the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). She noted that the land uses within the application generally comply with the WJELUP. Beginning with the residential aspects of the site, Ms. Eddy stated that the applicant is seeking up to 1,390 residential units (3.9 units per acre) and she pointed out the areas on the plan designated for single- family detached units, single- family attached units (townhouses, duplexes), multi- family (apartments, condominiums), age- restricted, and commercial. A matrix depicting the minimum and maximum number of units for each housing type has been proffered. She said the applicant has introduced about nine new housing types with smaller lot sizes, shallower setbacks, and taller structures than those typically found within the RP District. Moving to the commercial and transportation portions of the site, Ms. Eddy pointed out two separate commercial areas proposed by the applicant and noted the floor space proffered. She said the applicant has proffered there will be no on -site parking in front of commercial buildings, to restrict the commercial building materials, and to restrict the size of signs. She said this application provides for the roads and alternative modes or transportation called for in the WJELUP, as follows: the extension of Jubal Early Drive as an east/west through road and the construction of a new interchange at Route 37; construction of a major collector road to facilitate traffic movement in a north -south direction to provide a connection between Jubal Early Drive and Cedar Creek Grade; and, provision of alternative modes of • transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and an interconnected system of multi - purpose trails and sidewalks. Ms. Eddy said the applicant has proffered to construct Jubal Early Drive through the property as a four -lane landscaped median section and will realign Meadow Branch Avenue. She next described the sequence of improvements: the improvements for Jubal Early Drive and Meadow Branch Avenue will be constructed prior to the 300" residential building permit; the second phase will be constructed prior to the 450`" permit; and the final section of Jubal Early Drive and the re- alignment and construction of Merrimans Lane and the four new ramps will be constructed prior to the issuance of the 600'" permit. Bonding of the ramps will occur at the 300" permit. Cidermill Lane in the City of Winchester will be extended into the Willow Run development, but it will be barricaded until the interchange is in place to discourage cut - through traffic. She pointed out the three proposed traffic signals. Referring to public facilities, Ms. Eddy said the applicant has not provided a school site. She said in lieu of the school site, the applicant has chosen to provide a monetary contribution of $1,000 for each of the non- age- restricted units (1,200 -1,300 units) to be earmarked specifically for land purchase for a future school site. A number of recreational facilities have been proffered, i.e. a community center, an age - restricted community center, an outdoor pool, an extension of the Green Circle, and an internal trail system. Ms. Eddy said the applicant is willing to make available to the County a five-acre site within the commercial area for an aquatic center. Should the County choose to accept that, the value of the land the aquatic center would be constructed on would count towards the applicant's required recreational amenities and, in addition, if the County decides to build the aquatic center, the applicant will not build the community pool for the residents. Ms. Eddy proceeded to review the • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1968 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -4- applicant's monetary proffers offered to mitigate the impacts of the development on the County's capital facilities, which were based on the County's old fiscal impact model. • Ms. Eddy next discussed the environmental features on the site, and the proposed developmentally sensitive area (DSA) around the wetlands and the additional 50 -foot resource protection area (RPA). She said the only disturbance allowed within the two areas will be crossings for roads, utilities, pedestrians and bicycles; a landscape plan will be prepared for the wetlands area on the south side of Jubal Early Drive. Ms. Eddy next reviewed the six design modifications requested, which involved the MDP, permitted uses, a mixture of housing types, the commercial and industrial areas, the buffers and screening, and the road access. In addition, she said the applicant was seeking a modification to the front setback and to the building height limit in the commercial area. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy said the overall land use proposed is generally consistent with the WJELUP and the applicant is incorporating some of the neo- traditional recommendations from the UDA Study. Notable shortcomings identified by the staff included: Minimum proffered commercial floor space; few commitments to the layout and design of the commercial areas; erosion of the commercial core, if an aquatic site is developed; no school site; use of the old fiscal impact model; and the possibility of an incomplete road network, if residential construction ceases before the 600' building pennit. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing three sets of property owners for the Willow Run rezoning application: Greystone Properties (Mr. James Vickers and Mr. Ritchie Wilkins), Miller and Smith, and the White family. Mr. Wyatt said that not only will both Greystone and Miller and Smith be the developers, but they will be the principal builders of the residential products as well. He noted that Greystone Properties and Miller and Smith have crafted a development agreement which sets the framework for how they will work jointly together, not only for the implementation of the infrastructure, but on building permit issuance, necessary easements, and property owner association documents. Mr. Wyatt reported that they also worked closely with local environmental experts, Dr. Woodward Bousquet, Shenandoah University's Director of Environmental Studies Program, and Mr. James Lawrence, the Director of the Green Circle Development Project, particularly on the northern part of the site containing the wetlands areas and the Abrams Creek Channel, in order to develop good environmental proffers for their project. Mr. Wyatt began by providing an explanation of how this new revised plan emerged from the one submitted back in December of 2005 and how the UDA Study had influenced its design. Mr. Wyatt's presentation included a discussion of the phased permitting program of 200 building permits per year and the residential design elements, with a mix of housing types, recreational amenities, a transportation network, and walkable environment. In his discussion on the neo- traditional design elements, Mr. Wyatt said they were seeking a reduction of the building restriction line in order to place structures closer to the street and the ability to exceed the building height requirement in order to provide second floor residential above retail. Mr. Wyatt then talked about the monetary proffers, land donations, regional transportation, and value components for the community. Mr. Wyatt said that although topographic challenges of this site are not cwnduciveto the large pad sites needed for the construction of a school, they were offering a monetary contribution towards a school site in another location. Mr. Wyatt said that with this project, Jubal Early Drive will be completely constructed, the right -of -way is dedicated, Meadow Branch Avenue is realigned, frontage improvements will be made on Cedar Creek Grade, there will be a connection of Cedar Creek Grade and Jubal Early Drive, Merrimans Lane will be relocated, multiple signalization is being fully funded, the • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1969 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -5- Route 37 north -bound and south-bound on -ramps will be constructed by the 600'" building permit and • bonded by the 300'" building permit. He commented about their work with the City of Winchester for the Jubal Early Drive extension in order to obtain the 80 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Wyatt concluded his presentation by noting that there was a concern at the staff application briefing on December 19, 2006, that if the aquatic center was designated for the commercial area, that floor area should not be credited towards the proffered commercial floor area, he said they have revised proffer B2 to clarify language so that does not occur. Another concern was with uses such as gasoline stations and "big box" retail. He said they have revised proffer B7 to prohibit gasoline stations and to limit "big box" retail by limiting the square footage of tenant space to 50,000 square feet, except for grocery stores, the aquatic center, movie theaters or indoor recreational centers. He said another concern raised was how key elements of the project are protected, if the developers fail. Mr. Wyatt said they have made some additional guarantees; specifically, the phasing program for delivering the major road infrastructure stipulates that everything is in place prior to 40% of building permits. Additionally, they have agreed to provide right -of -way and Jubal Early Drive is locked down from the City line to Merrimans Lane by the 200'' permit; the bonding for Route 37 interchange by the 300' permit; bonding for the community center by the 400'' permit; and there is bonding for the age - restricted community center at the subdivision design plan stage. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak on the rezoning application, the modifications, and the MDP. The following persons came forward and spoke: Mr. Joe Hickman of the Back Creek District came forward to read a statement from Mr. David Worthington, a landowner in Frederick County, who could not attend this evening's meeting. Mr. . Worthington's letter focused on environmental concerns, such as clear cutting of mature woodlands and the affects of clear cutting on the area's wildlife. He suggested that the applicant designate tree save areas of mature woodlands and provide connections with open space corridors for the protection of indigenous wildlife. Additionally, Mr. Worthington's letter expressed concern that the MDP showed two sections of residential housing within the RSA (Resource Protection Area). He knew of no way for either the County or a homeowners association to keep those future residents from adversely affecting this environmentally - sensitive area and he asked the applicant to remove those housing units from the MDP. In conclusion, Mr. Worthington asked that the applicant protect the existing historic structures and properties. Dr. Woodward Bousquet, a resident at 17 East Leicester Street in Winchester, said that he coordinates the Environmental Studies Program at Shenandoah University and he was also the Co- Chair of the Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve Management Committee which reports to the Winchester Parks and Recreation Department. Dr. Bousquet stated that Mr. Jim Lawrence and he began meeting with representatives of the applicant, Greenway Engineering and others, in 2004 to provide input on protecting the water quality and the wetlands and he had four comments on this proposal. 1) Dr. Bousquet said the plan takes appropriate steps to minimize impacts on wetlands and water quality and to mitigate unavoidable impacts on the wetlands. Many of those steps are required by provisions of the Clean Water Act, but the proffer goes beyond those requirements by providing the 50 -foot RPA, or the undeveloped buffer zone, along Whites Pond, Abrams Creek, and the wetlands areas. 2) He raised a technical concern regarding point Number 4 on Page 15 of the proffer statement regarding trees and shrubs recommended for the wetland areas. Dr. Bousquet said the wetlands are largely a marsh dominated by grassy plants, rather than a swamp wetlands dominated by trees. He said planting trees in this habitat would defeat much of the purpose and may cause the loss some of vegetation, which includes • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1970 Minutes of February 7, 2007 — 6 — more than a dozen species on Virginia's list of state rare plants. Dr. Bousquet hoped the landscaping plan sentence could be removed or modified. 3) Dr. Bousquet's third point focused on the fragmentation of the woodlands and breaking up of the wildlife corridor. He hoped that the County would look at all developments and examine the value of mature woodlands and wildlife corridors and develop ordinances • that will afford better protection to those areas than is currently provided. 4) His fourth point was to commend the provisions of the plan for bicycle and pedestrian access and for the connection of the network of public and private trails and pathways in this development with the Winchester Green Circle. Ms. Maya White Sparks, of the Shawnee District, echoed Dr. Bousquet's and Mr. Worthington's comments and said she was in favor of restoring the marsh's natural vegetation and preserving the mature woodlands. She also suggested that the walkways be constructed of a porous material to reduce the amount of storm water runoff. Ms. White Sparks was pleased to see the developers, engineers, ecologists, and environmentalists working together to protect the Abrams Creek Wetlands and she hoped to see more of such cooperation as the urban areas continue to build out. She hoped the County's Department of Parks and Recreation would be able to protect the County's portion of the wetlands so they will remain a legacy for future generations. Ms. White Sparks said that urban development does not require the decimation of the natural landscape. She said that preserving natural landscapes and connecting greenways helps property values and tourism, helps people to de- stress, provides opportunities for exercise, enhances water quality by reducing erosion and storm water runoff, it mitigates flooding, and it reduces energy consumption. She thought it was time to take inventory of the entire county of all its precious ecologically - significant resources. She asked that this awareness be incorporated into all future urban planning. Mr. R. J. Turner, a resident of Back Creek District, said he was a property owner in the ShaNvnee District, Turner Enterprises, LLC at 2971 Valley Avenue. Mr. Turner wanted to know if Birchmont Drive would line up with the Homespun property on Cedar Creek Grade. Mr. Raymond M. Gritsko, a resident at 147 Meadow Lane in the Clayhill subdivision, • Shawnee District, was concerned about the provision of water for all of the homes being constructed, as well as adequate wastewater streams. Ms. Carol A. Shafran, a resident at 1889 Clayton Ridge Drive, in adjoining Meadow Branch South, said her family recently moved here from Highlands Ranch, Colorado. Ms. Shafran was concerned about viewing the backs of the commercial areas in the proposed development; she was also concerned about the noise, the pollution, lighting, and exhaust from the road. Ms. Michelle Morris, a resident at 1881 Clayton Ridge Drive in the City of Winchester, said she lived close to the small area of commercial proposed in the project. Ms. Morris wanted to know if anyone was present to represent the City residents. She wanted to know what the County's setback guidelines were; she was concerned about viewing the back of the commercial uses with trash containers, the parking, and night -time lighting. Ms. Morris wanted to know the kind of commercial uses that were proposed; she was concerned about a 24 -hour operation. In addition, she said there were overhead electrical lines along the City- County border and she asked if those lines would be placed underground. Mr. John Gavin, a resident at 112 Ridge Court in the Gainesboro District, said he moved back to this area in 2000, after 25 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Gavitt said although it's impossible to save everything, he believed it was important to focus on the important areas, such as riparian areas and wildlife corridors and try to make a difference while there is time. He was concerned about the influx of people to this area over the last decade. He suggested that as a community, • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 197 l Minutes of February 7, 2007 -7- everyone should look carefully at the important ecological areas because they will make a difference for the community's future quality of life. Ms. Chris Fasano, a resident of Meadow Branch South on Clayton Ridge Drive, said she recently moved here from New York. Ms. Fasano said that Clayton Ridge was an aesthetically - pleasing development and the trees were preserved. She was concerned about what she would be viewing from her residence towards this development; in particular, she was concerned about allowing an increase in the height of buildings and the increased amount of impervious areas. She said the project seemed to be decimating the land. Ms. Ann Casey, a resident at 2111 Stoneleigh Drive in Orchard Hills, said she lived adjacent to the proposed project and her concerns were much the same as the previous speakers. She was concerned about how the proposed development would look from her residence and she had questions on the buffer proposed between the two neighborhoods. Ms. Casey was concerned about the appearance of parking lots, lights, and trash receptacles, etc. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium and responded to the questions and concerns raised by the public. Commission members requested that staff provide further clarification on the flexibility the applicant is seeking in the MDP and clarification on the buffers between the commercial areas. Ms. Eddy said under Modification # 1, the applicant is asking for design flexibility because of the proffered MDP; they do not want to have to go through the entire rezoning process for a minor adjustment in • design. She said an example of the flexibility desired would be for the percentages of environmental features, provided minimum ordinance standards are met, or the ability to alter the acreage in housing types, or the location and type of recreational facilities, provided minimum standards are met. Ms. Eddy said that if the modification became significant, it would be brought back before the Commission. Regarding the clarification of the separation buffers between residential and commercial, Ms. Eddy said the applicant is requesting 25 feet, a single row of evergreens planted closer together, some deciduous plantings, and no opaque screen. Commissioner Light said that it was his understanding that if a MDP or a rezoning petition changes significantly, the new proffer model would apply. Commissioner Light said this was a change of an entire zoning district and he asked why this was operating under the old model. Ms. Eddy replied that as part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting that the County allow them to use the older model because their application had been submittedjust before the old model expired and they are doing a significant amount of transportation improvements. Commissioner Light asked if all of the roads achieved a Level of Service (LOS) "C." Ms. Eddy replied that the internal roads to the project certainly achieve LOS "C;" however, there are quite a number of other roads, mostly within the City of Winchester, but also some within the County, that will function at a LOS below "C." Those roads are Merrimans Lane and Cedar Creek Grade, Cedar Creek Grade and Route 37 Interchange, Cedar Creek Grade and Harvest Drive, Cedar Creek Grade and Valley Avenue, Valley Avenue and Jubal Early Drive, Amherst Street and Meadow Branch, and the Route 50 and Route 37 Interchange. She added that some of these roads would be less than LOS "C," regardless of this project. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1972 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -8- Commissioner Light inquired if a transportation study had been done by the County regarding the development of the remainder of the West Jubal Early Land Use Plan and what will be needed to mitigate the impacts of the potential development of the Solenberger/ Bridgeforth tracts. Ms. Eddy said the applicant's TIA clearly addressed the impacts of their own development. She said the Solenberger and Bridgeforth properties are within the UDA, but have not been rezoned; she said they would need to do a TIA. Commissioner Light asked what would happen if a transportation flaw is discovered with the Willow Run project at the 700` building permit. He asked if the County wouldhave the ability to correct the problem. Ms. Eddy said no; she said the road improvements are based on the proffers. She said the applicant will build what they have proffered to build and are not committing to build more, if the TIA didn't get it right. Commissioner Light disagreed with having the value of the land for the County's five - acre aquatic site count towards the applicant's required recreational amenities. He thought the recreational units should not hinge upon whether Frederick County accepts this location as an indoor pool site. Commissioner Light said the people buying into this development should be assured that recreational units are going to be in the area for this site. Other Commissioners were concerned about reducing the amount of commercial area, if the aquatic center was incorporated on this site. Ms. Eddy clarified that one pool is planned for the site, either an indoor public pool or an outdoor private pool will be constructed. She added that the square footage of commercial was not limited, with or without the County's aquatic center. Commissioner Light said it was his understanding that if a rezoning application significantly changed upon a re- submittal, then the new fiscal impact model should be used for the project. Since the requested zoning was changed from the previous submittal, Commissioner Light believed that was a major change and the County was not obligated to the old proffer model. • Other Commissioners were willing to accept the use of the old fiscal impact model because of the substantial transportation improvements, particularly the Jubal Early connection, and the contribution towards the purchase of a school site, that were offered by the applicant. Commissioner Morris commented that as a member of the vision committee reviewing the potential for nco- traditional development in the UDA, he was pleased with the proposed project and the applicant's willingness to work with the County, VDOT, and other agencies on the proposed design. He surmised there was considerable "behind the scenes" work that needed to take place to bring the project to fruition. Chairman Wilmot announced that the Commission would first take action on the modification requests, then the alternative buffer and screening plans, and then the rezoning itself. h was decided that the applicant's request to reduce the front setback and to exceed the building height would be handled as Modification Request 47. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend the acceptance of all seven of the modifications to the R4 District requested by the applicant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of seven modifications to the R4 District requested by the applicant for proposed Rezoning Application #21 -06 of Willow Run, as follows: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1973 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -9- Modification 91 - 165 -68 Master Development Plan Modification 42 - §165 -69 Permitted Uses • Modification 93 - §165 -71 Mixture of Housing Unit Types Required Modification 94 - §165 -721) Commercial and Industrial Areas Modification 45 - §165 -7213 Buffers and Screening Modification #6 - §165 -72I Road Access Modification #7 - §165 -72B 20 -Foot Building Restriction Line and 50 -Foot Building Height The majority vote to recommend the acceptance of the modifications was: YES (TO ACCEPT MODIFICATIONS) Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr NO: Light ABSTAIN Unger, Mohn Conunissioner Morris made a motion to recommend the acceptance of the alternative buffer and screening plans requested by the applicant with the MDP as allowed in §165-72G(2) of the R4 Zoning District regulations. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously • recommend the acceptance of the alternative buffer and screening plans as requested by the applicant for proposed MDP #15 -06 of Willow Run and as allowed by §165- 72G(2) of the R4 Zoning District regulations. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend the approval of Rezoning Application 421 -06 of Willow Run, including proffered Master Development Plan # 15 -06 for Willow Run, along with the additional proffers as offered by the applicant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #21 -06 of Willow Run, including proffered Master Development Plan 415 -06 for Willow Run, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 359.97 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, along with all additional proffers as offered by the applicant, for commercial land uses and up to 1,390 residential units. The majority vote to reconnnend approval was as follows: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1974 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -10- YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr NO: Light ABSTAIN Unger, Mohn The Commission encouraged the staff to keep the Planning Commission informed, if there are any variations made to the MDP for Willow Run. UDA and SWSA Expansion Request for Clearview, CPPA #06 -06, submitted by Painter -Lewis P.L.C., to include 130.07 acres of land for residential land uses. These four parcels are located south of Hopewell Road (Rt. 672), adjacent to and behind the new Waverly Farm Rural Preservation Subdivision, and west of Interstate 81, adjacent to the I -81 Rest Area. The parcels are further identified with P.LN.s 43 -A -75, 44 -A -1, 44 -A -3, and 44 -A -3B in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Denial Commissioner Oates abstained from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a potential conflict of interest. • Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this is one of the two CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment) requests the Board of Supervisors had asked to be given additional study. Ms. Perkins stated that the subject parcels are not located within the limits of any small area land use plan and are located over a mile from the Urban Development Area (UDA); the parcels are also outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Ms. Perkins stated that the applicant is requesting that the UDA and the SWSA be expanded to include these four parcels so the property can be developed as an age- restricted housing development. She said the extension of the UDA would enable all ages and residential housing types into this area. If rezoned at the maximum allowed density for the site, there is the potential for 520 residential units into this area. Ms. Perkins said the approval of this CPPA would introduce future high density residential land uses into an area with no adjacent high - density residential with a transportation network that is not designed to accommodate this use. In the past, the County has not extended the UDA in a non - contiguous manner. In addition, she said the Sanitation Authority has stated that while water is available, the sewer capacity in this area is insufficient to serve the existing land already within the SWSA. Ms. Perkins said the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request at their meeting on October 10, 2006. She said the CPPS's primary concern was that the character and context of the proposed use did not 5t in with the surrounding rural land uses. She reported that the CPPS was satisfied with the current rural use of this area and unanimously recommended to the Planning Commission that the CPPA request be denied. Ms. Perkins reported that the Planning Conunission discussed this CPPA request at their November 1, 2006 meeting and it recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the application not move forward. The Board of Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1975 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -11- Supervisors discussed the item at their December 13, 2006 meeting and sent it forward so they could hear public input on the proposal. • Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, an attorney with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., was representing this CPPA application for Gary and Pamela Payne, the owners of the site called Clearview. Mr. Lawson said that several members of the Board of Supervisors were interested in receiving public input on the proposal. Mr. Lawson stated that a conditional rezoning application for this property has been filed with the Planning Department and it is for an age- restricted project. He said the project also involves sonic limited commercial to serve the age - restricted community. Chairman Wilmot inquired how many units were projected. Mr. Lawson cited the staffs projection of 520, however, he pointed out that schools would not be affected because the project is age- restricted. Mr. Lawson said they have done a traffic study encompassing six intersections and the Level of Service (LOS) is not degraded with this project. He said that only one intersection is affected, the intersection of Brucetown and Route 11, and their proffer provides a monetary contribution to address the future anticipated realignment of that intersection. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Louise Kitts, a resident on Waverly Road, questioned how the proposed development would be accessed. Ms. Kitts said that if access is intended by using Michael Drive, she wanted to point out that it is not a two -lane road and would not be wide enough for all of the traffic. Mr. Daniel Kline, an adjoining property owner in Fairview Estates, was opposed to cottage -style housing and commercial against his property. He said if this property was to be developed, • he preferred to see the five -acre lots. Mr. Lawson returned to the podium to address the public comments. Mr. Lawson said that their pending rezoning application shows that Michael Drive is intended to be improved to a full VDOT- standard road. He said the rezoning is also proffering a heavy buffer package and green space to separate the project from the neighboring uses. Commissioner Light said the CPPS saw this as an existing five -acre lot subdivision area; the CPPS believed that if this project is approved, there would also be absorption of the Waverly Famr into the UDA. Commissioner Light said that this CPPA request has been run through the process and the Planning Commission has recommended denial every time. Commissioner Light then moved for denial of the CPPA request and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Commissioner Thomas believed that any use of this area besides five acre lots would be an improvement. He felt that if there was some way to restrict this to an age - restricted community, it would be a benefit to the County. However, since the County did not have the ability to do that in a SWSA expansion, he thought it would be dangerous to expand the UDA and the SWSA, since it can not be restricted. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1976 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -12- BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the UDA and SW SA Expansion Request for Clearview, CPPA 406 -06, submitted by Painter - Lewis P.L.C., to include 130.07 acres of land for residential land uses. The majority vote for denial of this CPPA was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Watt, Manuel, Morris, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Light, Unger, Mohn NO: Thomas ABSTAIN Oates 2007 -2008 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. If adopted, the CIP is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Technician Kevin T. Henry reported that the Planning Commission considered the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) at their December 6, 2006 meeting; the consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the CIP were in conformance with the Comprehensive • Policy Plan. Mr. Henry stated that the proposed CIP includes 54 capital projects, 17 of them being new, which includes 1 I new transportation projects. He said a significant addition to the CIP this year is the inclusion of Transportation Conwrittee requests; the reason for the addition is that State Code now allows transportation projects to appear in the CIP. Mr. Henry said the addition of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects; fwrding of projects will continue to come from a combination of State and Federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing. Mr. Henry continued, stating that of the remaining six new projects, four new projects have been requested by the public schools and include: 1) renovations to Apple Pie Ridge Elementary; 2) addition of classrooms at Bass Hoover Elementary; 3) the relocation of Frederick County Middle School to the Hayfield area; and, 4) the renovation of Frederick County Middle School to use as an administrative office building. Along with the school projects, the Regional Library has requested two new library locations be sought in the Senseny/ Greenwood area and Route 522 South area. Other projects in the 2007 -2008 CIP have been carried forward from last year's CIP. Commissioner Light asked about the Route 37 engineering projected at $1,500,000 for two consecutive years or any road on the transportation portion. He asked if it was Frederick County money or VDOT money, or is it Frederick County money up front and then refunded back to Frederick County from VDOT. The County's Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, replied that the Board of Supervisors could choose to fund a project under a certain situation; however, it is intended to be Federal and State funds, or revenue sharing fmrds that could represent some Frederick County funds. Mr. Bishop said there will be nothing outside of the normal procedures, aside from the fact that it is now appearing in is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1977 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -13- the CIP. • Chairman Wilmot called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No other areas of concern were raised. The consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the CIP were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 2007 -2008 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County, The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget and will be a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165 -55, Setback Requirements Action - Recommended Approval with Modification Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the proposed amendment addresses setbacks in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Mr. Cheran said the existing RA setbacks are in need of clarification and the proposed changes should clear up any confusion to adjoining land uses and avoid conflict with active agriculture uses. He said the changes would also apply to family division lots. In addition, Mr. Chcran reported that the Board of Supervisors recommended that a waiver be incorporated in the case the referenced setbacks would cause an undue hardship on existing parcels of record. Commissioner Oates referred to Section 165- 55(A)(2) "... shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel..." Commissioner Oates said that since the first two uses, residential and agricultural /residential, are based on acreage and nothing more, he thought it would be appropriate to take out the residential and agricultural /residential component and simply state, "six acres or less - 50 feet, greater than six acres - 100 feet." Other Commissioners were in agreement. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Conunissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165 -55, Setback Requirements, with the modification to base the setbacks for residential and agricultural/residential uses on acreage, rather than use. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1978 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -14- • Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as follows: Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article II, Definitions and Word Usage; Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24(C)(2)(B), Lot Requirements; Zoning, Chapter 165, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 54(B), Family Division Lots; Zoning, Chapter 165, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 54(D), Rural Preservation Lots; and Zoning, Chapter 165, Article XXII, Definitions and Word Usage, Section 156. Action — Recommend Approval with Modification Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that all of the proposed amendments being presented this evening are basically being done to clean-up and clarify language. He said all of the proposed amendments were brought before the Commission at a previous meeting for discussion. Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article II, Definitions and Word Usage. Mr. Cheran explained this revision incorporates the same language for Definitions and Word Usage that is used in the zoning ordinance. Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24(C)(2)(b), Distance of Lots from State-maintained roads. Regarding the distance of individual lots from a state - maintained road, Mr. Cheran said a typographical error was corrected by changing the words, "more than" to "less than." • Commissioner Mohn stated that the revised language indicates that the, ..... individual lots shall be less than 500 feet," and in effect, it is 499 feet. Commissioner Mohn suggested that the language be written as, "...499 feet or less." Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165- 54(B)(1), Family Division Lots. Mr. Cheran reported that the Board of Supervisors recommended adding a time period whereby family division lots may remain with a family member. Mr. Cheran said the State Code was changed last year to address this, specifying that it shall not exceed 15 years. He said that, although it has never been codified, current and previous zoning administrators for Frederick County have interpreted that family division lots conveyed shall remain with the family member for two years. Mr. Cheran said the proposed amendment states that the conveyed lot shall remain with the family member for five years. Commissioner Oates wanted to make sure that the five -year time period is actually stated on the signed affidavit so whoever is doing the subdivision is fully aware. Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165- 54(D), Rural Preservation Lots. Mr. Cheran stated that this amendment deals with the 40% preservation lot that must remain intact. He said the language has been modified by identifying the preservation tract by name and to better clarify the intent of how this has been interpreted by current and previous zoning administrators, by specifying that . whatever acreage is recorded at the court house must be preserved. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1979 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -15- Conunissioner Oates believed the criteria for a rezoning should be the SWSA and not • the UDA. Other Commissioners preferred the language remain as written. Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Section 165 -156, Definitions, is an amendment to simply correct a typographical error. Mr. Cheran said the definitions for Full Screen and Landscape Screen were mistakenly reversed and this amendment will correct that error. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to r� L speak: Mr. John Goode, a resident of the Stonewall District, spoke to the amendment dealing with rural preservation lots. Mr. Goode said he questioned having the lots preserved in perpetuity because there may be a public need, such as a fire department or a school, and this lot may be an ideal location. Mr. Goode said he appreciated the spirit of the Commission desiring to make some technical corrections to the ordinances. He wanted to remind the Commission, however, that if they ever had the opportunity to reduce the lot sizes, not necessarily increasing the density, he thought it would go a long way towards preserving the rural landscape. He believed two acres was still quite a considerable amount for someone to maintain. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend the approval of all five ordinance amendments for Chapter 144, Subdivision, and Chapter 165, Zoning, with the revision to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24(C)(2)(b), Distance of Lots from State - maintained roads to be written as, "...499 feet or less." This motion was seconded by Conunissioner Ours and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the amendments to the Frederick County Code, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, as follows: Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article 11, Definitions and Word Usage; Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V, Design Standards, Section 24(C)(2)(b), Lot Requirements, modified to be written as, "...499 feet or less;" Zoning, Chapter 165, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 54(B), Family Division Lots; Zoning, Chapter 165, Article V, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 54(D), Rural Preservation Lots, and Zoning, Chapter 165, Article XXII, Definitions and Word Usage, Section 156. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1980 Minutes of February 7, 2007 -16- • OTHER Appointment to CPPS Chairman Wilmot appointed Commissioner Rick Ours to serve on the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, L� . &�� M. Wilmot, Chairman • • R. Lacwence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 2007 Page 1981