Loading...
PC_02-21-07_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 21, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesbom District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Walter E. Hibbard, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. \ Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner 11; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk • CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Uponmotion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the minutes of the December 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the January 3, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. L-A Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1982 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -2- • COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 02/12/07 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed work priorities for the upcoming year, including community facilities and services, and text amendments. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 02/20/07 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed a pending rezoning application proposed for the southeast corner of Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Commissioner Oates said the historic structure, identified as the Greenwood School, was the primary concern since it is located in the center of the property and would have to be removed, if the parcel is developed. Commissioner Oates reported the HRAB's recommendations, if the property is developed. Sanitation Authority (SA) — 02/20/07 Mtg. • Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of January was down; the water flow was down because of less rain in January; and water usage was up about 5.3 mgd, which was contributed to warmer January temperatures. Commissioner Unger said the SA is anticipating the bid for the pump station, which will supply the new subdivision, Snowden Bridge; condemnation of some property is involved. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 02/20/07 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the WPC discussed six items: 1) recommended approval of a CUP renewal for the Piccadilly Brew Pub; 2) recommended approval of Phase 3 of Glen Lea Court, a five -lot subdivision; 3) recommended approval of a down- zoning from M2 to C 1 of a parcel along Valley Avenue at the O'Sullivan Plant; 4) recommended approval of a corridor enhancement district along Valley Avenue from Cedar Creek Grade to Bellview Avenue; 5) discussed the next segment of the corridor enhancement along Berryville Avenue; 6) recommended approval of an ordinance amendment to allow breweries to the CM 1, M1, and M2 Districts. In addition, Commissioner Oates reported that the WPC will hold a public meeting from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m at City Hall on February 28, 2007 to discuss the final leg of Valley Avenue for corridor enhancements. He recalled that at the previous CPPS meeting, there was a discussion about applying something similar within a mile or two of the city limits. Commissioner Oates said this would be a good opportunity to sec the City's process for implementation. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1983 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -3- 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 #01 -07 of Jordan Springs, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 185.43 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, 28.30 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 3.42 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone, and 3.42 acres from B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to RP (Residential Performance) District (with 6.91 acres to remain B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone), with proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 604 residential units. The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road and fronts the east and west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and fronts the west side of Wood's Mill Road (Route 660). The property is further identified with P.I.N.s 44 -A -294 and 44 -A- 294A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that there are two properties that make up the site, • totaling 227 acres; she proceeded to describe the various acreages and the rezoning requested which comprise the total site. She commented that the applicant's engineers have worked closely with the staff to get the acreages correct because a surveying error was made in 2001 when a portion of the property was rezoned to B2. She said the staff is trying to rectify this error and the remainder is a completely new rezoning. Ms. Eddy said the site is within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan ( NELUP); however, it lies outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and only a small portion of the site (around the B2 area) is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Since the UDA is the appropriate location for dense residential development, the proposal is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ms. Eddy stated that in 2004 and 2005, the properly owners had applied for a Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) to bring the entire site into the UDA and both in 2004 and 2005, the Board of Supervisors chose not to study the request further. Ms. Eddy said in August of 2006, another similar CPPA request was submitted to the Planning Department, however, it was submitted after the June 1 deadline for CPPAs and was returned to the applicant. Ms. Eddy stated that the site contains a significant amount of environmental features and the NELUP calls for identifying environmental resources and developing methods to protect those resources. She said the applicant has clearly identified the resources, but has not yet committed to protecting those resources. Ms. Eddy read the Sanitation Authority's comment which stated that a wastewater pump station would provide service to the property and water facilities have the capacity to meet demand. She said the Service Authority, however, noted that waste water capacity given to this project would take away capacity to other previously - approved projects in the Opequon Service Area. Ms Eddy reported that a portion of the site is historically significant and will be retained within the HA (Historic Area) Overlay; however, the historic setting should be buffered from the proposed new uses. She added that Woods Mill Road is not proposed by the applicant to be improved to a minor collector road status, as called for in the Eastern Road Plan and not all surrounding roads will function at a LOS "C." Furthermore, the applicant is introducing a new housing type and new housing • standards which are not allowed in the RP Zoning District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1984 Minutes of February 21, 2007 Commissioner Kriz asked about State Code time limits on accepting monetary proffers for • transportation. Ms. Eddy replied that the proffer states that contributions will be made as the permits come in for the units, which could be several years. Ms. Eddy said the State Code has a time limitation of seven years for the money to be used by the locality. Commissioner Thomas asked if the property was ever within the UDA. Ms. Eddy replied that a portion of the land was within the UDA and a portion was within the SWSA. She said the change came in September of 2006 when all the boundaries of the UDA were comprehensively examined and at that point, the UDA and SWSA lines were moved slightly to the north to correspond with the R4 Zoning of the Snowden Bridge (Stephensons Village) development. Commissioner Thomas inquired how long those portions of the property had been in the UDA. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, replied that the UDA appeared on this property with the Snowden Bridge exercise, which came through only two to three years ago. Referring to the traffic study, Commissioner Thomas pointed out the staff's comment indicating the LOS at the intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill falls to a LOS "E" and "F." Commissioner Thomas contended that the LOS from background traffic at this location is already "E" and "F" and there was little impact from this development alone on any of the intersections in the LOS analysis. Ms. Eddy commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the NELUP do not recommend the entertainment of rezonings if there is not a LOS "C." She believed the project would exacerbate the problem, as opposed to solely causing the problem. Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, PC, with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., stepped forward on behalf of the property owners, Greig D. W. Aitken and Tonie M. Wallace - Aitken, and the developers, Drees Homes. Mr. Lawson said this process started back in 2005 with the owners interviewing prospective developers for their site and to consider, preserve, and emphasize the historic hotel and surrounding buildings. He said initial • meetings with the Planning Department were held in October of 2005; and, a historic plaque was presented for Jordan Springs by the Board of Supervisors in June of 2006. Mr. Lawson said they attended meetings held by the County on the UDA/ SWSA boundary modifications and discussion was held concerning a portion of this property that was within the UDA/ SWSA boundaries. Mr. Lawson said that at this point in time, his client was well underway with their rezoning application and comments from agencies were being sought in July and August of 2006. He noted that comments from the agencies were coming back in the Fall of 2006 and they were responding to those comments. He wanted to point out that considerable work has been taking place on this project over the past couple years. Mr. Lawson next proceeded to provide the Commission with details about the project, pointing out the commercial areas, the trail system, and the green space. He talked about the possibility of re-establishing the old historic pub for a full- service facility and the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Mr. Lawson said the applicants are working on a forest management plan and proffers include: the protection of wildlife corridors and wetlands; the provision of open space along the stream; the provision of neighborhood commercial; design standards incorporated into surrounding residential development to compliment existing historic elements; the provision of monetary proffers which total approximately 14.746 million dollars for about 604 units; funding of regional road improvements will be placed in an interest- bearing account for use by the County; inclusion of walking trails and a recreational center; and the dedication of easements for a 30 -inch sewage main. Mr. Lawson stated that the applicants hosted a meeting at Jordan Springs with the neighbors last evening; he said about 34 people attended and, generally, favorable comments were received. Mr. Greig D. W. Aitken stated that he and his wife, Tonie M. Wallace- Aitken, own Jordan Springs and their business is located at Jordan Springs. Mr. Aitken said they currently reside on the other side of the hospital, but planned to move to the property after it starts to develop. Mr. Aitken said they voluntarily added the historic overlay in order to protect the historic structures into the future. He commented that they wanted to make sure development of the property is done tastefully to enhance the property. Mr. Aitkens said that he and his wife traveled to Indianapolis and Nashville to look at projects done by Drees Homes and they were very Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1985 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -5- pleased with how the projects looked. He added that they have recently removed some of the Virginia Pines from the property to begin implementation of their forest management plan. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Michael Hoffman, a resident of Opequon Ridge III, said he learned about this public hearing just this morning because the public hearing sign was not in a location he could view from his development. He was concerned that many of his neighbors were also unaware of the hearing. Mr. Hoffman said he called the Stonewall District Supervisor and requested that he ask the Planning Commission to postpone this request so he could meet with his neighbors and gather information on the project. He was concerned about the proposed location for the commercial area because of the steep topography and wetlands on the property. Mr. Hoffman said he was opposed to the rezoning and he questioned whether the County will continue to keep changing the UDA every time someone wants to sell their property for development. Mr. Mark Slivers came forward and stated that his office was located at Jordan Springs. Mr. Stivers thought there was adequate notification of the public hearing; he said there was a sign placed across the street from Jordan Springs and there was also a sign on Woods Mill Road; there were also some advertisements in the newspaper. Mr. Stivers said that he attended last night's meeting held by the applicant and many of those residents had received a notification in the mail. He expressed confidence that the owners, Tome and Greig Aitkens, care about this property. Mr. Stivers recalled that when the Planning Commission was discussing the UDA and SWSA Boundary Modifications, Jordan Springs was discussed; he said the recommendation from the Planning Commission, as he recalls, was not to remove the Jordan Springs property because this Commission was aware steps had already been undertaken to propose development of the property. He also recalled that the Board of Supervisors included the Northeast Land Use Area into the SWSA and he believed it was more than a couple • years ago. Mr. Slivers was in favor of the project proposed by Drees Homes and he supported Mr. and Mrs. Aitkens. Mr. Clark D. Fortney, adjoining property owner at 1281 Jordan Springs Road, was concerned about the impacts to the overall traffic pattern in this area; he said this proposal, unlike Redbud Run and Snowden Bridge, is not close to a major highway. He believed the project would create significant traffic issues in the area and transportation needs to be addressed by the applicant. In addition, Mr. Fortney said this is a rich, bio- diverse woodland area and is habitat to many game species; he was concerned about the removal of significant stands of timber from the property; and, he was concerned that development of the property would interfere with the biodiversity of the stream and the wildlife associated with the stream. He commented that this property is probably the last significant woodland stand in the eastern area of Frederick County and he thought it should be preserved. Mr. Fortney was also concerned with the B2 designation on the east side of Jordan Springs Road, adjacent to his property. He did not think this was a proper location for commercial development because of the steep topography and it was not contiguous with the other B2 -zoned areas near the hotel. Mr. David Darsie, a resident of the Stonewall District, was opposed to this proposal and he spoke about quality of life issues for the long -time residents of this area. He spoke about the limited water supplies in the two quarry systems and that the Opequon Water Treatment Plant was nearing capacity. He was concerned about the precedent of additional development with the future installation of a force main through this area. Mr. Darsie said that he was not in favor of UDA expansion in this area. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1986 Minutes of February 21, 2007 Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT representative, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas asked if it would be financially feasible and practical to improve Woods Mill Road, Jordan Springs Road, and the intersections onto Route 7 and Route 11 to adequately and safely handle the traffic from these developments and provide a LOS that will remain at "C." Mr. Ingram believed the transportation improvements were practical, but he did not want to comment on the financial aspect until he had an opportunity to study the numbers. Mr. Ingram said he just received a copy of the revised TIA and has not had an opportunity to conduct a detailed study. He said the proffers were significantly improved over the initial submittal, but VDOT wanted more time to analyze the figures and respond. Ms. Eddy returned to the podium and stated that the proffer statement in the Commission's agenda packet is dated January 10, 2007 and is the same proffer version the staff and the County Attorney have been working from. She said several items came up this evening that were not in the January 10, 2007 proffer version, and included the trail on the east side of the property, turn lanes at Old Charlestown Road, and the dedication of land on Woods Mill Road. Commissioner Thomas said he attended the applicant's meeting at Jordan Springs last evening and a considerable number of people were in attendance. He believed a revised proffer statement was distributed at the meeting that was different from what was in the Commission's agenda. Commissioner Thomas believed there was a significant amount of work that needed to be done by the applicant, and the Commission should consider tabling for 90 to 120 days to allow the developer additional time to continue work on the issues. He thought the most significant area requiring additional work was the transportation issues. He said the developer needs to get together with VDOT and possibly, other developers in the area and discuss ways to improve Woods Mill Road, the intersection at Route 7, and Jordan Springs Road to accommodate not only the traffic from this development, but the background traffic as well. He recognized it was not this developer's responsibility to pay • for all of that impact or improving all the LOS, but the applicant may be the catalyst that pulls it all together to get it accomplished in conjunction with VDOT. Without specific transportation information, he didn't believe the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors had the necessary data to be able to act on the proposal in a responsible manner. He also expressed concern that no minimum square footage was proffered for the commercial area; he questioned whether the minimum would be zero, and the possibility of the County getting just that. He also understood how the applicant could have had a reasonable expectation a couple years ago that the property could be incorporated within the UDA and S WSA, since one -third of the property was already within its boundaries. He recalled previous occasions where the Commission and Board have placed an entire parcel within the UDA and SWSA boundaries, if the property was partially within those borders. Conmiissioner Unger stated that normally, with a project of this size, the applicant should first attempt to get the property included within the UDA, and then secure availability of water and sewer. He was also concerned that there were no plans for schools with this proposal and the roads were terrible. Mr. Unger said he could see this development occurring in the future; however, without the property first being in the UDA, he didn't know if the proper steps were being followed. Commissioner Light, who was also a member of the CPPS, stated that the reason this proposal was twice turned down through the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments (CPPA) process was, in part, because the Eastern Road Plan designates the roads in this area as rural and, therefore, a strategy has not been developed to handle the traffic this proposal could create. He said without the improvements to Woods Mill Road, with uncertainty about Route 37, and considering the potential loading of Route 11 by Stephenson Village, the Rutherford site, West Virginia traffic, and other possible developments, the potential for serious transportation problems exist. He said that a plan has not been submitted by the applicant that proposes to • address any of these impacts, nor does the County have that planning in process. Commissioner Light said the staff has raised 23 concerns in the agenda package and 13 statements were provided from the County's attorney addressing the proffers. He said that none of these concerns have been adequately addressed by the applicant and, in addition, a revised set of proffers was being discussed. Commissioner Light did not believe the proposal was Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1987 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -7- • ready. Commissioner Mohn agreed the project had potential; however, before he would consider it, the property would have to be within the UDA and would have to be subjected to a study that examined the portion of the site previously within the UDA and the remainder of the site outside of the UDA. Commissioner Mohn also wanted to see some conclusions about the transportation system. He said that if any move is made with this property in terms of rezoning, it should not only be consistent with the process, but a land use study needs to be completed and the UDA expanded. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application for the following reasons: 1) the proffers before the Commission do not adequately address nor mitigate the regional transportation impacts created by this development. 2) the proposal does not address its portion of Woods Mill Road that is shown for future improvement in the County's Eastern Road Plan. 3) the proffers do not adhere to the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in regards to housing types, lot sizes, and setbacks. 4) the application identifies environmental features, but does not satisfactorily address nor mitigate the environmental and ecological impacts to the streams, woodlands, and wildlife; 5) the mitigations to the impacts of parks and recreation county-wide are not sufficiently addressed; 6) buffering and screening are not addressed in regards to the historical features and settings; 7) the application does not conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan due to its location outside of the UDA and SWSA; and, 8) the comments received from the Sanitation Authority and the Service Authority, indicate the sewer capacity is not sufficient to serve the project. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Light. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning Application #01 -07 of Jordan Springs, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to • rezone 185.43 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, 28.30 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 3.42 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone, and 3.42 acres from B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to RP (Residential Performance) District (with 6.91 acres to remain B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone), with proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 604 residential units. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Unger, Watt, Manuel, Oates, Light, Kriz, Triplett, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Thomas, Ours (Please Note: Commissioners Morris and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning Application #18 -06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, with proffers, for commercial and industrial uses. The property is located on the east side of Route 11, approximately 3,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672). The property is further identified by P.I.N. 33- A -124A in . the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1988 Minutes of February 21, 2007 ME • Due to a potential conflict of interest, Commissioners Oates and Light abstained from all discussion and voting on this application. Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that a public hearing for this application was held on December 20, 2006 and the Commission tabled the rezoning for up to 90 days and requested the staff to evaluate the applicant's transportation proposal. Ms. Perkins said that since that meeting, staff has met with VDOT and has a better understanding of that proposal. Ms. Perkins said she would provide an overview of the rezoning application first, and then, the County's transportation planner, Mr. John A. Bishop, will review the transportation proposal separately. Ms. Perkins reported that the applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement which has limited the total square footage for high- traffic uses, such as retail, restaurant, and indoor recreation, but has not limited the types of uses allowed within the B3 area. Recognizing that the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for industrial uses on this property, Ms. Perkins said the staff believes that commercial uses such as general office, amusement and recreational services operated indoors, garden supply and retail nurseries, and gas stations should be eliminated from this development to ensure the intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is implemented. She added that the land use proposed in this rezoning could be consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan (DIELUP), if a number of uses were prohibited on the site. Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, stated that staff was directed by the Commission at their December 20 meeting to coordinate with VDOT and develop a review of the financing structure proposed by the applicant. Mr. Bishop said that one of the key questions with this proposal is if the cost offered by the applicant is appropriate. Upon reviewing cost estimates on a per unit basis from the Metropolitan Planning • Organization (MPO) Plan and from VDOT, the numbers shown on the applicant's spreadsheet are roughly a quarter of what the MPO and VDOT's estimates show for the same improvements. Those improvements included the improvement of Route 11 for approximately 2'/: miles from a three -lane section to a four -lane divided roadway as called for in the Eastern Road Plan and also, to align Brucetown Road with Hopewell Road and to make improvements to that intersection. Mr. Bishop said the full build -out will have an affect on the value of the $100 per trip over time. In addition to the $100 per trip, the applicant is providing their frontage improvements and the County would be looking for future applicants to do the same, should this scenario be adopted. Another key component raised by Mr. Bishop was project inflation. He said the costs of asphalt and other materials are quickly increasing. He said that VDOT has experienced approximately 12% project inflation cost on an annual basis for the past two to three years. If this was projected out, in just six years, this amount would double, thus weakening even further what the $100 per trip would accomplish, even if it were the correct starting cost. As the County is waiting for that fund to build up over build -out, the project costs are inflating, and there is no way to determine how fast those dollars are going to come in. Commissioner Kriz inquired if there was some area of transportation improvement the applicant could immediately pursue with the funds he had proposed. Commissioner Kriz asked if there was a maximum amount that could be collected considering the proposed uses and the $100 per vehicle trip. In addition, he wanted to know if there was a time limitation on when money contributed to the County needs to be utilized before it has to be given back to the developer. Mr. Bishop said his understanding was the State Code designates a seven -year time frame for using a cash -type proffer. As far as where specifically the applicant could nut their funds as opposed to the $100 per trip, Mr. Bishop said the County would be looking at a sub - regional solution because the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for a four -lane corridor with an aligned intersection. Mr. Bishop . recognized that the applicant can not solely complete the project; however, he believed there were portions that could likely be done, such as the average preliminary engineering -type costs for a project because it is roughly ten percent. Another idea would be for the applicant to pursue right -of -way acquisition for the traffic signal at Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1989 Minutes of February 21, 2007 • Brucetown and Hopewell. Chairman Wilmot asked the staff for a dollar amount that the $100 per vehicle trip would generate. Mr. Bishop replied that it would depend on the final land use, according to the proffer; he said it could generate an amount anywhere from $10,000 to $500,000. Commissioner Thomas commented about the lack of transportation and traffic evaluation in the staff report; he said this rezoning application has failing intersections and failing LOS. Commissioner Thomas said he was opposed to accepting a cash proffer for transportation improvements because of the significantly increasing costs associated with asphalt and concrete. Chairman Wilmot asked the VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, if he could estimate the cost of improving one of the intersections with signalization. Mr. Ingram stated that the biggest obstacle is the acquisition of right -of -way and realignment to make the signals function properly and to obtain a LOS "C." He estimated it would cost approximately $750,000 to $1,000,000 to re -align Route 672 for signalization and right - of -way acquisition. Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward. Ms. Trudy Dixon, representing GreyWolfe, Inc., the applicant, stated that the proffers offered with a 16 -acre rezoning across the street only amounted to about one -third of the $100/ trip that GreyWolfe was proffering for their site. She estimated the $100 /per vehicle trip would generate about $200,000 with a 5,000 square -foot restaurant and 75,000 square feet of office space. Referring to the staffs report regarding disallowing office use in B3, Ms. Dixon believed this was an interpretation issue; she thought B3 was more of a • transition between the concrete plant behind and the residential and B2 across the street. In addition, she felt that if the office space was proffered out, they might as well simply go with M1 Zoning. Ms. Dixon said they removed the limitations from the square footage because they were proffered "per trip." Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Claus Bader, a resident of the Red Bud District, commented that all of the small parcels in this area are designated for business or industrial by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Bader said that if all the improvements are tied to any one project, no commercial development will occur and the County will end up with five -acre lots. He said that GreyWolfe Inc. has taken the first step in order to promote a commercial and industrial tax base in this area that others could build upon. Mr. George Sempeles, a resident of the Stonewall District, anticipated that the area between Clearbrook and the State Line will continue to grow. He said he made substantial proffers to the County for his 120 -acre parcel to the north; however, he suggested economies to scale with smaller parcels. Mr. Sempeles thought business would be stymied and doors would be closed by putting limits on small parcels of land and there were quite a number of them along this corridor. He believed the County's tax base needed to be increased. He believed the County needed to open the doors and not make it so prohibitive for investors to develop these five and ten -acre lots and cause the economy of their project not to work. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. • Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the Commission setting a precedent that the County may not be able to live with. He said a cash proffer for transportation based on a projected trip level may not be appropriate. He realized a small- acreage developer can not be expected to pay for all the transportation Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1990 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -10- improvements in an area, but the Commission could suggest that developer pay for half the cost of one intersection, or a percentage of the cost of signalization or engineering for an intersection. He thought the task of providing the cost estimates should fall on the applicant, rather than the staff. Commissioner Kriz did not want to delay the application any longer. He suggested the applicant provide a cash proffer in the amount necessary to improve an intersection. Mr. Bishop returned to the podium and said he had no objection to the suggestion, but the staff was not tasked to determine the cost of improving an intersection from the previous meeting; and therefore, the figure has not yet been prepared. He said that staff has some general ideas of what Brucetown and Hopewell will cost; he cautioned the Commission against making a general judgment and to give the staff the opportunity to study the matter. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Ingram for input on what would be appropriate at a specific level. Mr. Ingram said he would have several questions, such as, at what point through the development is the determination made on how many trips are being generated; will it be a two -year or a ten -year build -out. He said ten years from now, the $100 will not buy what it will today. He said he was not necessarily opposed to a per -unit fee, but there were just too many variables at the moment for him to provide an answer. Ms. Dixon said their proffer intentions were first presented to the Planning Department in July of 2006. She said part of the first proffer was a portion of the signalization of Hopewell Road and VDOT said they did not want that and she removed it. Ms. Dixon said that as an alternative, they were now offering the $100 per trip, which is significantly more than a partial signalization agreement for that intersection. Ms. Dixon said the applicant was asking the Commission to set a precedent; she said they were asking the Commission to hold • everyone else down the line to this number. Ms. Dixon said she had received an estimate from an engineering firm to redesign the intersection at $43,000.00. Ms. Dixon presented the proposal she received from Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates on July 6, 2006 with the cost estimate for the design realignment of Hopewell/ Brucetown Road. She said the applicant was willing to pay this amount and withdraw the $100 per trip, if that would make everyone more comfortable. Ms. Dixon then stated the applicant was willing to submit a revised proffer for the engineering costs for the realignment of Brucetown/ Hopewell Road, instead of the $100 per trip In light of the revised proffer, Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application #18-06 with the revised proffer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was passed by a unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application 418-06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, for commercial and industrial uses with a revised proffer to provide the funds necessary for engineering costs for the realignment of Brucetown/ Hopewell Road, instead of the $100 per trip previously proffered. The vote was as follows: YES (REC. APPROVAL W/ REVISED PROFFER) Mohn, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Wilmot, Manuel, Watt, Unger ABSTAIN Oates, Light (Note: Commissioners Morris and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1991 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -11- • Master Development Plan Application 910 -06 for Governors Hill, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, for Residential (550 units) and Commercial Uses on 281 acres, zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. The property is identified with P.I.N.s 64 -A -82, 64 -A -83, 64- A -83A, 64-A-86,64-A-87 and 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Unger and Commissioner Mohn abstained from all discussion and voting, due to a potential conflict of interest. Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this master development plan (MDP) is a proposal to develop commercial uses and 550 residential units on a 28 t -acre parcel of land, which was rezoned to the R4 District in 2005 with a proffered generalized development plan (GDP). Ms. Perkins noted that the GDP shows a revised road layout for the townhouses' internal streets, as well as the number of entrances onto Coverstone Drive. These revisions present a modification to the proffered GDP. Another modification, showing a portion of the area previously designated for condominiums, is now shown as single- family attached and is proposed to be developed with townhouses. She noted that these modifications are permissible and do not create a planning inconsistency. Ms. Perkins stated that the applicant has also shown that the townhouse portion of the • development will contain lots that are located 1,250 feet from a state - maintained road. The subdivision ordinance allows a waiver for lots greater than 500 feet from a state - maintained road, but not more than 800 feet; therefore, the 1,250 feet could not be approved. Ms. Perkins said that if a waiver is granted by the Commission to allow 800 feet from a state- maintained road, the applicant would need to adjust their road network prior to review by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, was representing the owners, Governors Hill, LLC. Regarding the requested waiver from a state - maintained road, Mr. Sowers said the code allows lots to be 500 feet, or 800 feet with a waiver, from a public street as measured along the private street network. Mr. Sowers said that in order to stay within the confines of the subdivision ordinance, they are reducing their request to 800 feet. He said they will extend the public street to meet the requirement. He added that VDOT prefers not to see townhouses fronting on public streets. Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of the waiver request for lots to be located up to 800 feet from a state - maintained road. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of MDP 410 -06 for Governors Hill. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1992 Minutes of February 21, 2007 -1 2- BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend • approval of Master Development Plan Application # 10 -06 for Governors Hill, subntted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, for Residential (550 units) and Commercial Uses on 281 acres, zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with a waiver to allow lots to be located up to 800 feet from a state - maintained road. (Note: Commissioners Unger and Mohn abstained from voting; Commissioners Morris and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Chairman Wilmot reminded everyone about the Planning Commission's Amoral Retreat, scheduled for February 24, 2007, at the Wayside Inn in Middletown. Chairman Wilmot had an additional item for the discussions regarding the 25- percent rule for commercial and industrial classifications. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. by a unanimous • vote. Respectfully submitted, ��l.t,CS1 n�1r• -9�� M. Wilmot, Chairman Secretary 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1993 Minutes of February 21, 2007