Loading...
PC_04-04-07_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 April 4, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, ChairmWShawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District, Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District, George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District, Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member- At- Lar Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chaimran/Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and the City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoling & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner II; Bernard Sucliicital, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. i CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot presented an additional item from the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)Idealing with height limitations of monuments. Chairman Wilmot said she would like to add this item under Number 8 on the agenda, for discussion by the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Commissioners Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Ours, and unanimously passed to adopt the Planning Commission's agenda with the addition of Item Number 8, Planning Conunission discussion of monument heights. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the February 21, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2016 Minutes of April 4, 2007 -2— COMMITTEE REPORTS ® Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 03/22/07 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS had a lengthy discussion about the SIC Codes with Mr. Patrick Barker, Executive Director for the Economic Development Commission. Commissioner Unger said that Mr. Barker detailed some of the problems relating with the SIC Codes and the DRRS will be doing some work on trying to get those codes updated. Transportation Committee — 03/26/07 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the subject of turning roads over to homeowners associations. He also reported that the bicycle plan is moving along nicely. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee also discussed and finalized the revisions for the Rural Roadways Ranking System. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Commissioner Light reported that the CEA had an open house meeting at [he home of Ms. Diane Kerns. He said that anyone who was interested in learning about or discussing conservation easements was encouraged to attend. He said there were four or five persons interested in the process. Also, Mr. Jeff Green spoke about his recent experience in placing his property into a conservation easement. City of Winchester Work Session Commissioner Unger reported that the City of Winchester held a work session and talked about ways to draw more business into Winchester. He said slides were shown of what they wanted buildings to look like. Commissioner Unger said the City was also concerned about providing sufficient housing and where to place low- income housing. He said they talked about placing housing over top of commercial strip malls. 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. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2017 Minutes of April 4, 2007 -3- PUBLIC MEETING • Master Development Plan 917 -06 of Crosspointe Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. to develop 547.37 acres for up to 1,578 single - family homes at Phase III build -out, and commercial uses. The properties are located in the Kernstown area, east and adjacent to Interstate 81, where VA Route 37 terminates. The properties are identified with P.I.N.s 75 -A -89, 75- A -89A, 75 -A -90, 75 -A -91, 75- A-92, 75 -A -94, 75 -A -95, and 75 -A -96 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the master development plan (MDP) for Crosspointe Center is a proposal to develop 574.37 acres on a tract of land rezoned in 2003 with proffers. Ms. Perkins said the site consists of 381.8 acres of RP -zoned land and 192.57 acres of B2 -zoned land. I She stated that the development will consist of up to 1,578 single - family homes and 960,000 square feet of commercial uses and will be developed in three phases. Ms. Perkins noted that the parcels comprising the MDP are located within the boundaries of the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP); the parcels are also located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). She said a series of transportation improvements were proffered by the applicant at rezoning and she summarized those for the Commission. Those transportation proffers included: the realignment and extension of Tasker Road (Rt. 642); the extension of Route 37 in the form of Crosspointe Boulevard; the extension of Warrior Drive; the extension and realignment of Hillandale Lane; and modification of the north bound 1 -81 interchange ramps. At this point in her report, Ms. Perkins pointed out the outstanding issues remaining with the MDP. She said that Proffer 3.3 stated that a comprehensive sign plan would be presented as part of the MDP submission for approval; the applicant has only provided a statement on Sheet 2 regarding commercial and s residential signage within the development. Ms. Perkins said the sign specifications provided by the applicant are not adequate and a complete sign package with sign details needs to be provided to implement this proffer. Ms. Perkins said the second issue involves a parcel owned by Glaize Developments, Inc. (PIN 75 -4 -2), which has not been included in this MDP; she said the property is technically shown under relocated Tasker Road, but the parcel number has not been included in the project summary. Third, Ms. Perkins stated that Proffer 16.2 stated that nine acres would be dedicated to Frederick County for the placement of government services; she said the location of the nine acres should be shown on the MDP. Additionally, Ms. Perkins pointed out the absence of the road detail for Route 37. Furthermore, she noted there were a number of outstanding agency comments from VDOT, Public Works, and GIS, which will need to be resolved, including approvals from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), and VDOT, before the MDP could be administratively approved. Ms. Perkins specifically referred to some of the transportation issues, other than the aspects currently under review by FHA and the CTB, which were located at the intersections of Crosspointe Blvd. and Tasker Road; and at Crosspointe Blvd. and Warrior Drive. Regarding Crosspointe and Tasker, she said the interim section of Tasker Road is shown with an at -grade crossing at Crosspointe Blvd., while the ultimate design for this intersection shows a separated intersection. At this time, it is unclear if the applicant intends to build the ultimate section of Tasker or only the interim. She said the applicant should be insuring the bridge over Tasker Road at this intersection with Phase II of the development. Regarding the intersection of Crosspointe and Warrior, she said the intersection is shown as an at -grade intersection. In the future, if this road is converted into Route 37, this intersection would need to be bridged to produce a grade- separated intersection. She said the applicant should demonstrate the constructability of this improvement. In addition, she said the road detail for Crosspointe Blvd. on Sheet 3 shows Phase Il and III with a 110 -foot right -of -way, but does not appear to make any commitment to • provide any shoulders or grading. She said the applicant should be prepared to address what the ultimate section will be. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2018 Minutes of April 4, 2007 Ms. Perkins pointed out that after review by the Planning Commission and the Board of ® Supervisors, the MDP can not be administratively approved until the applicant has received approvals from the FHA and the CTB, and has satisfied VDOT. Mr. John H. Foote, P.C., of Walsh, Colucci, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubeley, came forward to represent Glaize Developments, Inc. and Crosspointe Center. Mr. Foote said with the exception of the items specifically mentioned by the staff, the MDP is in conformance with the proffers and the ordinance requirements. He said they have been engaged in discussions with VDOT and the applicant's engineers are satisfied that the interim and ultimate conditions at Tasker relocated can be well satisfied. Similarly, he said the location of Warrior and Crosspointe is a matter that will ultimately be resolved by final engineering and not by the conceptual MDP. Mr. Foote said it was his understanding that VDOT is satisfied that they can use the MDP to accomplish the goals that were set forth when the project started. He noted that they ultimately need VDOT's approval for any road constructed at the project and they also need to get approval from the FHA because of the improvements that will be needed to the interstate itself. He said they believe this conceptual plan satisfies the issues that have been raised with respect to the roads mentioned. Mr. Foote said they had agreed to provide 110 feet of right -of- way for Route 37 and to design and build the roads according to the standard necessary. ) Mr. Foote next addressed the issue of the sign plan. Mr. Foote saidl they have provided information regarding signage and because of the way the proffers are written, they will have to do a unified program through this development. He said the provision of a comprehensive sign package, before they have users for the property, will create constraints if presented at this time. Mr. Foote said the applicant has submitted they will do monument signage; overall project standards will be incorporated, and signage will be covered under the restrictive covenants. With respect to Proffer 16.2, the nine acres of dedicated property, Mr. Foote said there must be a • mutually - identified location between the applicant and Frederick County; he said the applicant can not show something on the plan that has not yet been identified by both parties. Mr. Foote said the applicant has just recently received a letter, in conformance with the proffer, which permits the Board to extend their three -year period by an additional two years, by asking for the right to do so, while they are determining what they are going to put on the site and where. Mr. Foote said there is no reason or no ability at this time to�identify the property that is to be dedicated to the Board. Mr. Foote said the guarantee is there and the Board of Supervisors is fully aware. The applicant is obligated to make the dedication within 30 days of the Board's written request of an identified area. The Planning Commission discussed with Mr. Foote the applicant's intentions for signage throughout the development. They also discussed the dedication of the unspecified nine acres to the County for a public use site. In addition, they talked about the ability, with the approval of Crosspointe, to bring Warrior Drive up to Route 37, with commitments for construction. Recognizing that this property borders the Opequon Creek, Commissioner Light mentioned that some years ago, the Parks and Recreation Department discussed the possibility for a Parks and Recreation Opequon Watershed Recreational Use Agreement and the creation of a linear trail. He asked if the applicant might consider a dedication to Frederick County, under the management of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, instead of the HOA. Mr. Light believed the applicant could successfully achieve the dedication under the current proffers and the restrictive covenants. Mr. Scott Alexander, VDOT's Assistant Residency Administrator to Edinburg, agreed with the staff's comments about the need for additional road detail on Route 37; however, he believed the overall plan was • in good shape and that PHR &A had an understanding of what VDOT's concerns were. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2019 Minutes of April 4, 2007 -5- Commission members had questions for VDOT about whether the work that will be taking place by this developer will not ultimately have to be redesigned and reconstructed at a tremendous waste of money. They asked what VDOT has been planning in terms of a Warrior Road and Route 37 interchange, the grading, the bridging, and right -of -way. They asked if VDOT was comfortable that the amount of money being spent by this developer was being spent in the best possible fashion for future transportation endeavors. Mr. Alexander replied that the applicant's plan generally conforms to the initial Route 37 plans done a few years ago, o, with the exception of the new Warrior Drive interchange. He said the Warrior Drive interchange required VDOT to revisit the previous plans to ascertain whether it could be included in the ultimate construction of Route 37. Mr. Alexander said VDOT has a good idea about where they want this to go and how they want to get there'; he believed this was a good first step. Commissioners talked about the massive road changes that would need to take place and how it would affect normal traffic flow. They questioned Mr. Alexander about whether the transportation improvements were tied to the project's phasing in such a way that the next phase of development cannot commence until the transportation issues in the previous phase had been satisfied. Mr. Alexander believed there were enough contingencies within the proffers to prevent the developers from continuing on to another phase of development without approvals from VDOT or the County. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Alexander about the issues raised by the staff. Mr. Alexander said that VDOT's concurrence with the plan must include a caveat stating that the FHA and the CTB have agreed on the interchange improvements. He said that they are currently working through the process and are in their second submittal with the interchange modifications; he remained optimistic that VDOT would receive those comments by this summer. Mr. Patrick Sowers of PHR &A came forward to address the staffs comment regarding the • missing parcel, PIN 75 -4 -2, owned by Glaize Developments, Inc. Mr. Sowers pointed out a reference to the parcel on Sheet 43 of the MDP; he noted this parcel was not included in the original Rezoning 413 -03. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Ours believed this project was critically important to the transportation improvements in southeastern Frederick Comity and he was satisfied this development will give the County what it needs, especially in the overall plan of making Warrior Drive and Tasker Road work, and ultimately providing the foothold for the expansion of Route 37. Other Commissioner agreed and supported the proposal. Commissioner Morris moved for approval of MDP 417 -06 of Crossp linte Center with the caveat that an administratively - approved sign package accompany the MDP and that the County takes action on designating the nine -acre site. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 417 -06 of Crosspointe Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. to develop 381.8 acres of RP -zoned land with up to 1,578 single - family homes and 192.57 acres of B2 -zoned land with 960,000 square feet of commercial uses, to be developed in three phases, with the following two caveats: 1) an administratively - approved comprehensive sign plan shall accompany the approved MDP; and, 2) the County shall take action on identifying the nine -acres for a government services site. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Mohn were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2020 Minutes of April 4, 2007 UPDATE ON THE SHENANDOAH DEVELOPMENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 906 -00 ® Action — No Action Required Planner Bernard Suchicital provided the Planning Commission with an update of the Shenandoah project, an age- restricted community, which was approved on May 1, 2001, and surrounds Lake Frederick off of Front Royal Pike. Mr. Suchicital said the applicant is proposing some minor adjustments to the plan which can be handled administratively and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Suchicital reported that this 926 -acre project will include a village retail center, a two -acre fire and rescue site, continued public access to Lake Frederick, an indoor recreation facility, and the maximum build -out for the site will still remain at its original 2,130 units of mixed -use residential. He reported an increase of 40 additional units to the housing total, which will still meet the maximum allowed units. Other changes include a shifting of the phase lines and a slight modification to the internal neighborhood residential streets. Mr. Suchicital continued, stating that since the MDP's initial approval, the applicant has built a new wastewater treatment plant, has extended water lines to the property, and has had a total of 90 residential building permits issued to date. No questions or issues of concern were raised by the Commission. No action was required by the Commission for this update item. DISCUSSION Proposed amendments to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District; specifically, the introduction of Age - Restricted, Multi - Family housing. No Action Required Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, Inc. has initiated a request for a text amendment to the count) code to enable age- restricted multi- family housing. Ms. Eddy explained that the text amendment would allow a new housing type in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. She said the requested change is based on a desire to incorporate elevators in a cost- effective manner by permitting taller buildings with more units per building than allowed in the garden apartment housing type. Ms. Eddy next proceeded to explain the differences between the proposed new housing type age- restricted multi- family housing, and the existing housing type, garden apartments. Ms. Eddy reported that this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on February 22, 2007, and the DRRS was supportive of the applicant's proffered age - restricted version of the text amendment; however, they had a few modifications. She noted that the DRRS's main concern was with parking and they endorsed more parking per unit (2.0 spaces per unit) than the applicant had originally suggested (1.0 -1.5 spaces per unit depending on the size of the unit). She said the DRRS was supportive of the maximum height of 60 feet, but wanted to limit the mmniber of habitable floors to four. Ms. Eddy said the DRRS was supportive of a tall building with a well- designed roof line, however, they did not want to see the "packing -in" of floors with a flat roof on top. Commissioner Ours said the only real concern he would have is when a structure of this type • would be built adjacent to an existing single - family neighborhood. He asked the staff if the buffers as specified would be adequate to deal with concerns from adjoining landowners. Ms. Eddy replied that the viewshed issue Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2021 Minutes of April 4, 2007 • was discussed by the DRRS and was part of the reason why staff suggested the possibility of shifting this new housing type to the "neighborhood villages" and "urban centers." She said it would give the. County some control on where this housing type could be located, as opposed to the applicant's proposal that it could be located in any proffered age - restricted development." Commissioner Oates was also concerned about compatibility with existing neighborhoods. He said a 60 -foot structure at Cedar Meadows, for example, would lookout of place. Commissioner Oates said that since there are only eight existing subdivisions that could seek to do this housing type, he felt comfortable with it. He pointed out that the Commission will have an opportunity during the rezoning process to determine if the location and height were compatible. Commissioner Unger said he wouldn't have a problem with habitable space on a fifth floor as long as the structure didn't exceed the 60 -foot limit. Ms. Eddy said the concern at the DRRS was avoiding a "flat -roof' look. She said the DRRS was trying to encourage a well - designed roof. Commissioner Manuel supported the text amendment completely and he believed it was a good way to conserve land. He commented that this is only one more floor than is currently allowed. Commissioner Light stated that he saw one of the proposed structures and didn't care for the way it looked. He suggested keeping the proposed housing type in the Urban Development Areas where it cannot be placed near a single - family home. Chairman Wilmot suggested another approach which had been discussed by the DRRS and that was making this available through a conditional use permit. She said this would allow the l county to customize • the housing type to fit the land and the environment. Commissioner Light said he would support the use of a conditional use permit for this housing type. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Sowers stated that the main premise behind this text amendment stemmed from the typical three -story structure with a center stairwell. With only 16 units per building, it is not economically feasible to serve this building with an elevator system. Mr. Sowers said they were bringing this forward in proffered age - restricted developments as a way to cater to the elderly population. Mr. Sowers explained that the active age - restricted development typically has residents in their late 50s and early 60s. As this community ages into their 70s, they look at downsizing even more, which identifies a need for this type of housing. It is more accessible for those who have trouble climbing steps. He further explained that these elderly persons could continue living in their same familiar neighborhood, even if they do need to downsize. Mr. Sowers said the four habitable floors create no issues with him or his client; the 60 -foot comes from being able to accommodate the pitched roof. Mr. Sowers next addressed the parking standards. Mr. Sowers said this housing type will cater to persons who are in their mid 70s, not the 55 to 58 age category. Mr. Sowers said that based on previous experience constructing this type of housing in more urban settings, his client said that parking is typically in the range of a '/2 space per unit to one space per unit. Mr. Sowers said that considering the more rural setting of Frederick County and taking into account the age of the typical user of this particular use, he was proposing parking at 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. Mr. Sowers believed the two spaces per unit recommended by the DRRS was a bit high; he commented that two spaces per unit would be approximately 90% of the parking that would be required if it were non - age - restricted. Mr. Sowers said the other concern raised by the DRRS was the setback from a roadway, which is currently 60 feet; he said his original proposal was for 35 feet, which is equivalent to the garden apartment standards. He said the fear in terms of having large -scale parking and a large setback is a • building set too far from the roadway with a sea of parking in the front. He said it doesn't lend itself towards creating a walkable environment. Furthermore, there were concerns with creating large amounts of impervious surface area for unnecessary parking, and additional issues with water runoff. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2022 Minutes of April 4, 2007 • Commission members agreed that parking at two spaces per unit was probably too high. They doubted this age group would have two vehicles per unit and suggested some may not even have one vehicle. They expressed concern about creating a large area of impervious surface that wasn't needed and thewater runoff that would result. i No action was needed by the Commission at this time. The staff stated they would forward the Commission's comments to the Board. OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING MONUMENT HEIGHTS Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that staff has recently heard some concerns about the heights of monuments. Ms. Eddy said that monuments are not defined in the zoning ordinance and, therefore, Webster's dictionary was consulted for a definition. She next read the definition of a monument from Webster's dictionary, as follows: "monument— a lasting evidence or reminder of someone or something noble; a memorial stone or building erected in remembrance of a person or event." Ms. Eddy explained that monuments are one of the structures that are exempt from the height restrictions of the underlying zoning district in which they are located, Supplemental Regulations, Section 165 -24. She said the height limit in most of the zoning districts is 35 feet and 60 feet in the industrial zones. Ms. Eddy said that other structures which are exempt include: bams and silos, church spires, church towers, etc. is Ms. Eddy said a discussion of monument heights took place at the Development Review and Regulations Subcormnittee (DRRS) on March 22, 2007. She said the DRRS believed the height of monuments should be the same as the underlying district; they couldn't see a reason why monuments warranted an exception from the height restrictions of their particular district. Ms. Eddy said the DRRS endorsed a text amendment to the zoning ordinance that removes monuments from Section 165 -24, Exceptions. Commissioner Morris asked what prompted the review of monument heights. Commissioner Oates said the definition of monuments is very open - ended; he said the county has no control over what is erected and this could be a way of preventing abuse. He also believed that a 35 -foot height should be sufficient to accommodate any monument. Other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Ours suggested the possibility of a conditional use permit for monuments, similar to what is used for cell towers. No other issues were raised and the Commission generally supported the staffs proposal and the DRRS's recommendation for a text amendment to remove monuments from Section 165 -24, Exceptions. No action was needed by the Commission at this time. The staff stated they would forward the Commission's comments to the Board. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2023 Minutes of April 4, 2007 �E ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Ll l ) M. Wilmot, Chairman Lawrence, Secretary rI L is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 4, 2007 Page 2024