Loading...
PC_05-02-07_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 May 2, 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; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison, and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and the City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Susan K. Eddy, Principal Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner II; Bernard Suchicital, Planner 1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk, CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA 40 Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to adopt the Planning Commission's agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by the March 21, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously apprc COMMITTEE REPORTS the minutes of Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 04/26/07 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS had a discussion abo It the philosophy and standards for design of new types of communities to encourage more aesthetically - pleasing walking communities. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2037 Minutes of May 2, 2007 -2- Transportation Committee - 03/26/07 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, gave a presentation regarding the private - public road systems. He said several other agencies were present, along with the Transportation Committee members. Commissioner Kriz said the conclusion at the end of the discussion was that it would not be feasible to have homeowners be in charge. It was believed the County should come up with some type of program to be able to handle the road system, if necessary. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a request to revise the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, ii ® Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by approximately 481 acres for commei north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50). The Round Hill area includes land and south of Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50), west of Route 37, and east of Crinoline and Back Creek Magisterial Districts. Action — Tabled evening's agenda. ling expansion of the development on the :rally located north e in the Gainesboro Commissioner Mohn stated that he would abstain from all discussion andwoting on this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Principal Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that this is one of the two Comprehensive Policy Plan amendments from 2006 which the Board of Supervisors had requested be studied in depth. She explained this particular item is a request to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) for commercial development in the Round Hill area. Ms. Eddy said the original application submitted last June by the applicant included 370 acres for Urban Development Area (UDA) expansion and included five parcels, owned by Silver Lake, LLC; for a National Lutheran Home and residences. She said the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) recommended adding some adjoining parcels, which brought the total acreage under consideration to 481 acres. Ms. Eddy said the submittal was revised by the applicant to only seek the SWSA expansion; the applicant is still seeking to ultimately develop a portion of the site for a National Lutheran Home. She said that what is unique about this particular SWSA request is that the applicant is seeking the commercial development for a medical - related campus, primarily because of its proximity to the Winchester Medical Center. She said the staff believes this is important because there is certainly other available land elsewhere which is already within the UDA and SWSA for commercial uses. Ms. Eddy explained that a portion of this site was already planned for commercial uses, but it is not yet in the SWSA. She said the staff has been working closely with the applicant to develop a • small -area land use plan, should the County choose to expand the SWSA in this area to acconnnodate a medical - related campus. Rather than developing a brand new plan, the decision was made to revise the existing Round Hill Plan to accommodate the proposal. Ms. Eddy presented a map to accompany the revised plan and she Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2038 Minutes of May 2, 2007 -3- pointed out the 481 acres of SWSA expansion, the commercial development, and the residential development in the older part of the existing Round Hill Community Center. She also described some of the features in the draft plan. Ms. Eddy said the Frederick Comity Sanitation Authority has stated that adequate wastewater capacity to serve this development should be available by 2010. She said the staff has had discussions with the VDOT staff and VDOT's view was that it will require considerable road infrastructure to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) "C" in the area proposed for the SWSA expansion, given what is already rezoned, but not yet built. She said VDOT was very concerned over any additional rezonings going forward in this section of the County without a comprehensive study of Route 522 North and Route 50 West. She added that the CPPS has endorsed the application and the draft plan. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of [he plan during their discussion in early January 2007 with some strengthening of the design standards along Route 50 and with the additional text to place greater emphasis on facilitating water and sewer extensions for existing residences. She said the Board of Supervisors' discussion on January 24, 2007, primarily focused on design standards on Route 50. A thorough discussion of the Route 50 design standards took place at the Planning Commission's Retreat in February 2007. Ms. Eddy continued, stating that this item was advertised for public hearing and legal ads were placed; however, some Board of Supervisors' members wanted to provide further input on the application. Therefore, while this public hearing is scheduled for this evening, she said the staff is not actually seeking a recommendation, but would take comments from the Commission. She said Mr. David Franks with Dewberry was present to represent the applicant. Conunissioner Kriz inquired if the applicant owned all of the property so i ght within this SWSA • expansion. Ms. Eddy replied no; she said the applicant owns 371 acres, which includes five parcels; other parcels have been included at the recommendation of the CPPS. Approximately 100 acres afire not owned by the applicant. Commissioner Oates referred to VDOT's comments on the possible difficulty in maintaining a LOS "C." Commissioner Oates asked if VDOT's discussion included the need to look for additional right -of -way or turn lanes; he questioned whether eight lanes should be considered instead of just six. Ms. Eddy said that VDOT's view was that existing roads were not enough; she said that VDOT was open minded about what could solve the problems and a number of options were discussed. Commissioner Oates said that when this request comes back before the Commission, he would like to see a more definite recommendation from VDOT in terms of whether the County should be looking at eight lanes, or collector /distributor lanes on Route 37, or additional right -of -way so that future developers brow what is expected. Commissioner Thomas asked if the staff could also provide for the next meeting, the LOS on Route 50 for both the east -bound and the west -bound lanes at the traffic lights for both the background and the build -out of the current medical campus and shopping center, and the projections for 2010 and 2020. Ms. Eddy believed the information was available, presuming a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was done with previous rezonings. Mr. David Frank with Dewberry came forward to represent the landowner. Mr. Frank said itwas his client's application that started this discussion and resulted in the draft plan. He said his client feels strongly that the revision of the SWSA will benefit Frederick County. He noted their work with the CPPS and the Planning Commission throughout the process. Mr. Frank said his client recognizes there are transportation issues at Route 50 and understands certain transportation improvements will be needed; he said that as the process evolves, those issues will be studied and appropriate resolutions put in place before development proceeds. I f , Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2039 Minutes of May 2, 2007 -4- Conunissioner Kriz asked the applicant if there had been discussions with any of the other properties that are coming into the SWSA. Mr. Frank said they have not had any direct conversations with other property owners. He said as their application came in, they only applied for what they control. As the process evolved, additional areas have been put in and the County is making recommendations above and beyond what the applicant controls. He said at this preliminary stage of the process, the applicant has not spoken with anyone else. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman Wilmot announced that procedurally, this item was a bit unusual. She said that due to the advertisement and notifications, the Planning Commission needs to move forward with the public hearing; however, since the Board of Supervisors had requested further input, the Commission will not act at this time. Commissioner Thomas moved to table CPPA 905 -06 SWSA Expansion Request for Round Hill Center until the Planning Commission receives the Board of Supervisors' comments. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. (Note: Commissioner Mohn abstained; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, ZONING, CHAPTER 165, ARTICLE IV, SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, SECTION 165 -24, MONUMENT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS. Action - Recommended Approval Principal Planner, Susan K. Eddy, read the definition of "monument from Webster's dictionary because the term was not defined in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Eddy reported that under the current zoning ordinance, monuments are one of the structures exempt from the height restrictions in its underlying zoning district. She noted the 35 -foot height restriction in the majority of zoning districts. Ms. Eddy read a list of examples of other structures which are exempt from the height restrictions in their underlying district and those examples included: barns, silos, church spires, towers, masts, and aerials. i Ms. Eddy said a discussion about monument heights took place at the DRRS meeting in March. the Planning Commission also held a discussion of monument heights at their meeting on April 4, 2007. She noted that most of the monuments in the area are less than 20 feet in height. Ms. Eddy said that both the DRRS and the Planning Commission believed monument heights should be the same as the underlying zoning district in which the monuments are located. Ms. Eddy stated that the text amendment presented takes monuments out of Section 165 -24, which is the list of exceptions. Commissioner Morris asked what prompted this review of monument heights; he suggested the possibility of using a conditional use permit process for monument heights, so each request could be considered individually. Conunissioner Thomas replied that the ERRS looked at this through their ongoing process to clean up the ordinance. Conunissioner Thomas said the DRRS noticed that the other items on the list had some functional reason why they may need to exceed the height restriction of the underlying zoning district they were _\ in. For a montunent, however, there is no basic, underlying functionality or reason why it needs to be any higher than the maximum height limit of the underlying district. He said that in order to reduce any potential eyesore or other possible future problem, it was believed it made sense not to include monuments within the exception. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2040 Minutes of May 2, 2007 -5- Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman • Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Upon motion made by Conunissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick Comity Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Chapter 165, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -24, Monument Height Limitations, Exceptions, which would remove monuments from the list of exceptions to height restrictions. (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning 904 -07 for the Haggerty Property Proffer Revision, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning 914 -04, which resulted in the rezoning of 111.56 acres to RP (Residential Performance) District. The proffer revisions propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. The properties are located in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 55 -A -212 and 55- A -212A. 0 Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that on February 9, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning # 14 -04 for the Haggerty property, which rezoned 111 acres to RP (Residential Performance) Zoning with proffers and enabled the development of up to 300 single- fannily attached and detached housing units. Mr. Ruddy said the rezoning also contained significant transportation proffers, which supported the revised Eastern Road Plan and relocated Valley Mill Road. Mr. Ruddy explained that before the Commission this evening is a request to revise the transportation proffers associated with the original rezoning application. He said the evaluation of this request should carefully consider the relationship between this project and several other projects within the vicinity. He pointed out that any modifications to the transportation program should continue to advance the Comity's long range transportation planning efforts. Mr. Ruddy noted that the current proposal does not provide a transportation impact analysis (TIA). In addition, no evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. Mr. Ruddy first reviewed the original transportation improvements that were approved with Rezoning 414-04 in February of 2005. He stated that the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan was revised in 2005 in reflection of the approved road network promoted by the Haggerty project and the need to relocate the critical east -west collector road, Valley Mill Road, in a manner which enhanced the road network provided by the Haggerty rezoning. Mr. Ruddy noted that the designation of this east -west major collector road has yet to be recognized by the revised Haggerty rezoning proffer and the various other projects under review in this area. Mr. It Ruddy believed this was a critical connection designed to enable vehicle trips to make the east -west movement without impacting the capacity of Route 7 and Scnseny Road intersections and corridor. He next reviewed with Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2041 Minutes of May 2, 2007 the Commission the revised transportation improvements proposed with Rezoning 904 -07, highlighting the more ®' significant changes that were illustrated on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Mr. Ruddy concluded his presentation by saying it was the staffs belief that the transportation elements proffered in this application were not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. Specifically, the east -west major collector road referred to as the relocation of Valley Mill Road is not accommodated in the revised GDP, particularly with inter - parcel connectivity and the Route 37 topographical conflicts. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting TIA that the proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs ofthe development and address the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Thomas didn't view the changes as negative, especially since the western section of Route 37 will be built and the majority of traffic from this site will go to Route 7, which may be preferable than going to Senseny Road. He said the revision still contains the access to Route 7 and he didn't see how the proposal reduced access south. Regarding the absence of a revised TIA, Commissioner Thomas said he was not sure how the revisions would change the number of trips or change the level of service. He didn't see how moving the connection point 400 feet would change the ability to construct the cast -west connector and thought it was preferable because of topography issues. Commissioner Oates commented that it appeared the east -west collector road was decreasing in capacity with this revision because it was shown as a local street, not a designed major collector road. Commissioner Oates wanted to see the east -west connector road next to Eddy's Lane, so that future development would use the new road, instead of going out onto Route 7. In addition, shifting the road 400 feet south was a major concern for him because d it would create unnecessary challenges for future construction of Route 37. He said the applicant was proposing to build a section of Route 37 to their property line which ends in a pulley; he asked if the applicant was proposing to construct a bridge over the gullet' or if they planned to dead -end the road on the bank. Commissioner Kriz stated that the original transportation proffers had the spire road connecting from Route 7 down to the end of the property and the revision has the traffic jmnping onto Route 37. Commissioner Kriz said it seems strange to get onto a four -lane road for such a short distance instead ofhavi ng a parallel road for the traffic. Commissioner Mohn's observation was that the applicant was combining the spine road and Route 37. He recognized that one of staff's objections was the fact the spine road ended or was removed at a certain point and did not continue as a local collector onto Senseny Road. Conmussioner Molm believed the east - west road was workable, however, it would be incmnbent on the next rezoning to the west to ensure the continuation of Valley Mill Road. Cormmissioner Mohn questioned the point of a spine road at this stage, especially because of the construction activity occurring in the Crosspointe development Mr. Ruddy said the staff's concern was that the local collector street system would be eliminated, compromising the general transportation in the area and forcing it all to one point. He said the location of any of the roads should accommodate the future construction of Route 37 without any additional costs. Referring to the transition point, he said the elevation change clearly provides the ability to avoid a Crosspointe situation, where the locality and the State may have to come back and expend significant additional dollars to reconfigure the transportation network in that area. He said if the east -west collector could be placed atlthe correct elevation initially, it would avoid any costs of having to come back and relocate the road to make the connection. Mr. John Bishop, the County's Transportation Planner, addressed the proposed relocation of the 10 east -west connector, he said the connection to existing Valley Mill would require angled cut -backs and he was concerned about increased costs. He said the original location of the east -west connector would have provided Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2042 Minutes of May 2, 2007 — 7 — better diffusion of local traffic, it would take advantage of the topography of the site, and there were property owners willing to dedicate right -of -way along the route. Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR &A) and Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., consultant for Mr. David Holliday, the developer, came forward to present the proposal to the Commission. The applicant's representatives stated that a two -lane, 750 -foot section of Route 37 will be constructed, using vertical and horizontal alignments, from where the spine road transitions into the Route 37 right -of -way to the end of the property, including the section that crosses the stream. They stated a TIA was not provided because the same connections as the original plan are in place. They noted that a profile was provided to VDOT showing the feasibility of constructing the east -west connector, as proposed by the Eastern Road Plan, 400 feet further south and there is adequate clearance to go under Route 37 at this location. The applicant's representatives said that when they examined the engineering aspects of constructing Valley Mill Road extension, they realized that a shift in the location of the road would avoid topography issues, it would provide a more suitable crossing of Abrams Creek and provide subsequent environmental protections, and it would provide for a connection to the spine road. The applicant's agents were confident that, from an engineering standpoint, the applicant could both fund and implement the revised transportation plan. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Maddox if the applicant would construct the southern part of the spine road, or Route 37, the entire distance to the end of the property, including the section that crosses the stream at the southern point. Mr. Maddox replied yes, he said they will construct the box culvert underneath the dam. Commissioner Thomas said he agreed with the applicant's comments on the location of the east -west connector road because there was only one economically - feasible location to construct the road with the bridge because of the topography. t Commissioner Oates was concerned about the lack of provisions for a second access and inter - parcel connectors. Commissioner Oates did not think there were enough assurances that construction of the cast - west connector would happen and he suggested the possibility of adjoining tracts coming in at the same time in a coordinated effort. Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT representative, was called forward by the Commission to comment on the proposal. Mr. Ingram said the two concepts were so similar, it was difficult for VDOT to choose which one of the concepts might be better than the other. He said the applicant's constriction of a portion of Route 37 was a positive step, as well as the construction of a bridge across the stream to the south. He added that the westbound lane could be utilized when Route 37 comes in because it will tie directly into the ramps and once Route 37 becomes limited access, the spine road could be used for local traffic. speak: Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following person came forward to Ms. Mary Lou Costello - Daniel, an attorney representing Investors LLC an adjacent property owner to the north of the cast -west connector, stated that her client has approximately 700 feet of landscaped frontage along Eddy's Lane. Ms. Costello- Daniel said her client had originally received tentative approval for 28 single - family lots, but is now in discussions with the Planning Staff about a revision to 50 townhouses. She said their traffic study indicated that townhouses would have minimal to no impact on Eddy's Lane. She said the original concept for their development was to have access onto the spine road; however, the staff specifically asked for access to be placed on Eddy's Lane. Ms. Costello - Daniel stated that her client is now being asked to make improvements on Eddy's Lane, all the way down across a parcel her client does not own, to the cast -west connector. She was concerned about how the Haggerty property's revised transportation plan will impact 0 adjoining parcels that are currently in the review process. She said her client is making the same kind of donation Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2043 Minutes of May 2, 2007 for Route 37, as well as bearing the decreased value of the properties, presuming all four lanes of Route 37 are constructed. Ms. Costello - Daniel asked the Commission to keep the surrounding property owners and developers in mind during their consideration so that all of the surrounding properties carry their fair share. She asked that a disproportionate burden not be placed on the other property owners and specifically, her client, for the improvements to Eddy's Lane. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Some members of the Conunissioners were not supportive of the revised transportation plan for several reasons. They said it appeared the revised east -west collector would have less capacity because it was shown as a local street rather than a major collector; and, shifting the road 400 feet south would remove the likelihood that properties along Eddy's Lane would use the road. Concern was expressed that the local collector street system would be compromised, along with the general transportation in the area. Questions were raised about the proposal's affect on costs for the future construction of Route 37. The overall thought was that the proposal was piecemeal and they suggested the possibility of adjoining tracts coming in together in a coordinated effort. Commission members expressed concern about the cumulative affect of the revised transportation plan, the ability to have inter- parcel connectors, and the ability to complete the County's road plan. Other members of the Commission thought the revised transportation plan was fundamentally consistent with the original transportation proposal. They commented positively about the construction of the western section of Route 37, moving the majority of traffic from this site to Route 7. They also noted that the construction of the relocated east -west connector will probably be more economically feasible because it avoids topography issues. They believed the revised proposal ultimately provides the foundation to accommodate the • traffic, not only for this development, but on a larger scale. Conmrents were made that the plan was botli efficient and could facilitate the County's transportation planning in this area; however, it would be incumbent on the Commission, the staff, and V DOT to insure that future development proposals fit into the plan to get the County to the next step. Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Kerr, BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #04 -07 for the Haggerty Property Proffer Revisions, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning 414-04, which resulted in the rezoning of 111.56 acres to RP (Residential Performance) District. The proffer revisions propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL Unger, Watt, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO- Oates ABSTAIN Manuel (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting; Commissioner Triplett was absent for this item.) E Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2044 Minutes of May 2, 2007 PUBLIC MEETING ® Master Development Plan 904 -07 for the Haggerty Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, for up to 300 single - family detached and attached residential dwellings. The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plan property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. The properties are further identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-212 and 55 -A- 212A in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 45 Days Conunissioner Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion land voting, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Bernard Suchicital reported that this master development plan (MDP) proposal on 111 acres will include 76 single- family detached units, 66 duplexes, 158 townhouses, 38.56 acres of open space, and a 12.47 -acre public right -of -way strip to be dedicated for the Route 37 corridor. Mr. Suchicital talked about the outstanding issues yet to be resolved by the applicant, which included the following: 1) the implementation of key elements of the Eastern Road Plan, with attention to the spine road and an east -west collector road; 2) accurate depiction of the proffered open space; 3) the appropriate inter - parcel connections of neighborhood streets and the pedestrian trail system; 4) the provision of an adequate community center within the development based on housing type, and 5) additional screening and buffering alongside the Route 37 corridor and major collector road network. Mr. Patrick Sowers, of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., the design and engineering turn representing the applicant, came forward to address the issues raised by the staff. Mr. Sowers raised the possibility of constructing the community center on the adjacent Adams' Farm property and enlarging it to serve both communities. He talked about relocating the inter - parcel connections on some of the neighborhood streets due to topography constraints and proposed Route 37, and the relocation of the trail system due to environmental impacts associated with crossing a stream and wetlands. Mr. Sowers noted that open space requirements for the MDP had been exceeded and the 12 -acre area labeled, "potential future non - residential development," could possibly accommodate a future small -scale commercial center. The applicant suggested that requiring a fill road efficiency buffer in addition to their proffered dedication of 12'h acres for Route 37 and their proffered 20 -foot landscaped easement seemed unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that Route 37 had not yet been constructed. In addition, Mr. Sowers pointed out that the applicant had proffered a collector road, not a major collector; he said there were only a few single - family detached homes with access to Haggerty Boulevard. Commission members said they could accept the applicant's proposal for relocating the trail system connection, if wetlands and a stream needed to be avoided. They did not agree with placing homes along Haggerty Boulevard because it was a violation of the zoning ordinance. Commissioners thought the possibility of a shared recreational center on a separate property could work, however, that property and proposal should have been brought in and incorporated with the Haggerty MDP. Details of the proposal were lacking and a suggestion was made that the applicant place a note on the MDP regarding the construction of the recreational center which included a trigger mechanism, possibly based on building pemrits. Another suggestion was for the placement of an alleyway behind the proposed homes on Haggerty Boulevard with a connection to Haggerty Boulevard further to the south. Questions were raised about the uncertainties with the inter- parcel connections. Overall, Commission members expressed concern about the many uncertainties surrounding the MDP and the fact that so ® many aspects of the plan seemed to be based on the development of adjacent properties. i Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2045 Minutes of May 2, 2007 -10- By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission tabled the MDP for 45 days in order to give the applicant time to submit a more detailed plan and to work out the uncertainties surrounding the issues raised by the staff and the Commission. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Kerr made a motion to table MDP 404 -07 of the Haggerty Property for 45 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Master Development Plan 404 -07 for the Haggerty Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, for 45 days, by a unanimous vote. (Please Note: Cominissioner Manuel abstained, Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Site Plan Update and Waiver Re quest for Site Plan #01 -07 of Blue Fox Billiards, Ba & Grill. This site is located at the corner of Route 50 East (Millwood Pike) and Ryco Lane and is within the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this item contains two parts; the first section is an • overview of the site plan due to its impacts to the Route 522 relocation plans and the second part is a waiver request by the applicant. Ms. Perkins stated that in an effort to keep the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors apprised of improvements that may affect planned road improvements, site plans and subdivisions that impact the right -of -way are being presented for review. She said the site plan itself is presented for informational purposes; however, a decision on the requested waiver is needed from the Planning Commission. She said it should be determined if this waiver is appropriate in this case. Ms. Perkins said the applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 165- 37D(6) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a waiver of the required zoning district buffer distance. She said the property is zoned B2 (Business General) and will have a use of restaurant and indoor recreation. The adjacent property to the south is zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) and a zoning district buffer is required between those two zoning districts. She said that since restaurants and indoor recreation are permitted uses in both the B2 and the B3 zoning districts, the applicant qualifies to request a waiver of this section. Ms. Perkins continued, stating that the Planning Commission has several options for their decision on the request, as follows: 1) approve the waiver of the buffer distance, but require all applicable landscaping and opaque elements required with a zoning district buffer; 2) approve the complete elimination of the buffer distance and the landscaping and allow the applicant to use only a six -foot fence as shown on their sketch; or 3) deny the waiver. Ms. Perkins said that a denial will not preclude the use of the site; however, it would limit use of the property for high- parking calculations, since the rear parking lot would not be possible. Commissioner Oates inquired about the first two options described by Ms. Perkhns. He asked if the landscaping would fit into the remaining area, because it looked like there would only be five feet available. Ms. Perkins said the site plan shows some existing landscaping, she said there should be enough room to accommodate a fence and a single row of evergreens. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2046 Minutes of May 2, 2007 -11- Commissioner Thomas asked if this was a major reconstruction of the building or rehabilitation. ® Ms. Perkins replied that she understands the applicant is keeping the existing structure and remodeling the interior. Mr. Steven L. Patton, P.E., with Patton, Martin & Associates, PLC, co -owner and applicant, stated that this is the old Harley- Davidson building and renovations are taking place inside the building. Mr. Patton said there will be a restaurant, a billiard room, billiard sales, and a bar, he said 62 parking spaces are required and they are providing 72. Mr. Patton said the owner is pursuing qualifications to have national billiard tournaments at this location; therefore, considerable parking is required. He said they were requesting the waiver in order to provide as much parking as possible. Commissioner Oates asked Mr. Patton if his client was considering valet parkingbecause of the distance to parking. Commissioner Oates also asked if the applicant would consider a single row of evergreens, along with the fence. Mr. Patton replied yes to both questions. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Morris asked the applicant which of the options he would prefer from those mentioned by the staff. Mr. Patton said that he would prefer to waive the buffering totally; however, if the Commission preferred, they would install the six -foot fence and a single row of evergreens. Mr. Patton commented that along the rear of the building, they have roughly 35 feet between the property line and the building; he said this area is heavily wooded and will provide a good buffer. I Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve the waiver for a reduced buffer distance, but with the addition of a single row of evergreens and a six -foot opaque fence. This motion was seconded by ® Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Waiver Request for Site Plan #01 -07 of Blue Fox Billiards, Bar & Grill in accordance with Section 165- 37D(6). The recommended waiver is for a reduced buffer distance with the addition of a six -foot opaque fence and a single row of evergreen trees. (Note: Commissioners Manuel, Light, Ours, and Triplett were absent for this item.) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m, by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, M. Wilmot, Chairman 4 0 Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2047 Minutes of May 2, 2007