Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_12-19-07_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 December 19, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District, Cordell Watt, Back Creek District ; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chaimtan/Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, Amber Powers, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the December 19, 2007 meeting. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of November 7, 2007 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 12/7/07 Mtg. Commissioner Kerr reported on the following action items by the EDC: 1) Requesting a 1% increase in the FY09 Budget over last year; 2) Held elections for Chairman, Vice - Chairman, and Executive Committee; 3) Discussed results of a national cost of living analysis in which EDC is participating; initial results • indicated the Winchester/ Frederick County area has a relatively low cost of living compared with the rest of the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2160 Minutes of December 19, 2007 -z- state; 4) Launch of the "Stop the Commute" campaign again, which will be going through the holidays. • Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 12/10/07 Mtg. Copunissioner Oates reported that the CPPS continued their discussions on the Route 277 Triangle Study. Commissioner Oates said Planner Lauren Krempa was available to report on potential historical structures in the Triangle Study Area; she also reviewed work completed over the summer by the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board) for the history section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Transportation Committee 12/17/07 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz provided details of the following items discussed by the Transportation Committee: 1) Acceptance of the 2008 meeting calendar; 2) VDOT's Draft Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements; 3) The Virginia Assign -A- Highway Program; 4) Potential truck restriction on Springdale Road; and 5) MPO Activity Update, which included details of the Route 37 Access Management Study, the Route 11 Access Management Study, the Route 7 Corridor Study, the Transit Study, and the Multimodal Grant Program. Sanitation Authority Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of November was down at 2 inches, and the Sanitation Authority's Director, Mr. H. Wellington Jones, stated that if rainfall doesn't improve this Winter and Spring, there will need to be discussions on water conservation and drought. Corm ussioner Unger reported waste in plants is average and water usage is down. He reported discussions on having the City of Winchester provide water and sewer at Annandale Mill, off Shady Elm Road, because it is gravity flow to the City and would require pumping for Frederick County to serve. Commissioner Unger said a replacement has been hired for Mr. Jones, since he will be retiring soon. In addition, the Sanitation Authority adopted a Resolution of Memorial for the late Charles E Maddox, Jr. with a list of Mr. Maddox's accomplishments for the Sanitation Department over the years. CITIZEN COMMENTS Shawnee District Representative on the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Gene E. Fisher, came forward to thank the members of the Planning Commission for their service and to send holiday greetings. Mr. Fisher next gave a special thanks to retiring commissioner, Robert A. Morris, who was present for his last meeting on the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher thanked Conunissioner Morris for his service since 1993 on behalf of himself, • the Board of Supervisors, and the citizens of Shawnee District. Frederick County Planning Conunission Page 2161 Minutes of December 19, 2007 -3- • PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 908 -07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and warehouse uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 30 Days Commissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this application, due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planting Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Planning Commission considered this rezoning application at their meeting of November 7, 2007 and voted to table for 45 days to allow the applicant additional time to enhance the application package and for the Commission to review revised proffers. Mr. Ruddy said the Plating Commission expressed concerns about a variety of items at the November 7 meeting relating to transportation, including buffering and screening adjacent to Shady Elm, and some general economic development perspectives. Mr. Ruddy nest summarized the changes in the applicant's proffers from the last meeting to this one. The primary change revolved around Shady Elm Road and the detail provided by the applicant explains their approach to addressing the Commission's concerns on the right -of -way for Shady Elm Road, in addition to its buffering and landscaping. He also described the changes in the monetary proffers involving signalization, road design, and historic resources. A final change involved a minimum of three users at final build -out. • Deputy Director- Transportation, John A. Bishop, came forward to provide a transportation overview of what was planned for this area and why. Mr. Bishop stated that Shady Elm is planned to be a major urban highway and is a very important link in the transportation system. He talked about the considerable traffic coming from the south on Springdale Road, which was undesirable, or by a circuitous route through Kemstown and Apple Valley Road, in order to access this area. He noted the area is planned largely for industrial, however, there is some residential, with more residential coming, and the Transportation Connnittee is trying to find ways to improve the situation. Mr. Bishop said issues of using rural standards where urban standards are planned remain the same as they were at the last Coimnission meeting. Mr. Bishop also discussed the importance of the bridge and the applicant's monetary proffer towards its design. He pointed out there is a limited amount of property available in this area to help implement the road system and as the County looks for development to help implement the transportation improvements, caution needs to be observed as far as how much burden is slufted to the next developer to come forward. In conclusion, he talked about the signalization proffer being converted to a cash proffer. Mr. Ronald Mislowski, with Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates, representing the applicant, stated that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to identify the impacts for this development indicated no improvements were required on Shady Elm Road. Mr. Mislowski stated that in addition to providing the required 20 -foot right -of -way, which would provide 40 feet from the centerline, they have made a proffer to reserve another 20 feet, should it be required. He next talked about the applicant's intention to construct a rural section of roadway and why he believed this was appropriate at the onset of the project. Regarding the bridge crossing, Mr. Mislowski said he contacted CSX Railroad and it was his impression that if properly designed with standards in affect at the time of construction, the bridge could be approved by CSX. • Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was also representingthe applicant. Mr. Sowers reviewed the monetary portions of the revised proffers. He said the November 6 proffer revision included a signalization agreement for Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road and because of that inclusion, the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2162 Minutes of December 19, 2007 ZE • bridge design proffer was reduced from $50,000 to $25,000. He said the revision before the Commission this evening is a modification of the signalization agreement to allow flexibility by offering a cash option, should the County prefer a cash proffer, and raises the total cash proffer from $50,000 to $225,000. He commented that the cash flexibility will allow the County to implement the Eastern Road Plan more quickly by contributing towards designing the bridge and implementing construction or allow the County to focus more on interim impacts and the cash proffer could be used for signalization of the Shady Elm and Apple Valley intersection. Mr. Sowers next described the proffered street trees in addition to landscaping required by the ordinance. In response to the staff's comment about the substantial landscaping in a relatively small area, Mr. Sowers described how they could shift some of the plantings around on both sides of the trail or have the additional landscaping between the trail and the roadway. Mr. Sowers next described the distance buffers, right -of -way dedication, and potential right -of -way for Shady Elm Road and the East -West Collector. He indicated the area adjacent to the Carbaugh property where they are providing the full 80 -foot right -of -way. He also showed the 20 -foot right -of -way dedication along Shady Elm's 40 feet, which totals 60 feet, and the provision of a 20 -foot distance buffer which could be used for additional right -of -way to provide the County with the entire 80 feet required. Mr. Sowers proceeded to address the historic proffers and construction design materials. Mr. Sowers concluded his presentation by emphasizing that this project is in conformance with the County's Long -Range Land Use Plan, which designates this area for industrial uses, and is the County's economic development base. In addition, he said the Easter Road Plan shows the planned major collector with the future crossing of the railroad tracks. He commented that he could see no reason why the railroad would object to having a flyover at this location. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: • Mr. James E. Clark, 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road, believed the proposal was ahead of its time for Frederick County and should be denied. He said the single improvement that would appear to significantly aid in traffic management, the proposed connector road, is a good concept, but is not a reality at present. He said there are no assurances a connector road between Shady Elm and Route 1 1 will over be built and the promise of a short piece of road on the applicant's property is of no value, unless the entire road is built. He commented that all the surrounding roads are two -lane roads and he described the congested traffic conditions that currently exist. Mr. Clark spoke about how the traffic congestion will be exacerbated by the other two new projects currently under construction on Shady Elm and Apple Valley. He said the cumulative impacts of this proposal and those of ongoing developments were too severe for an already stressed network of two -lane roads. Ms. Liz Hunter, Hedgebrook Hills, stated that traffic impacts at this location are huge. Ms. Hunter said the applicant's proposed FAR (floor area ratio) of .4 will generate 5,950 daily trips and will bring down the LOS (level of service) to less than a Category "C." She said this number does not take into account the Opus site or the FedEx building. Ms. Hunter understood that industrial zoning was in the County's long -range plan for this area, but the infrastructure was not in place to handle the impacts from the proposed project. She described the narrowness of portions of Shady Elm Road and questioned its capacity to manage the volume of traffic expected. She was also concerned about trucks traveling down Springdale and safety issues on that road. Ms. Hunter raised concern about the landscaping being squeezed into a five -foot strip. She spoke about the proximity of the project to residential; she said the Code allows the Commission to require a higher standard with regards to buffering and landscaping in order to make this project more livable and acceptable to the residents. Ms. Hunter suggested the street trees be planted every 20 feet and ornamental trees staggered in between the street trees. She also mentioned this property is listed on the internet as having a 42 -acre lot for sale with price is per acre and proposed date of rezoning. She read the listing of the property for the Commission. In addition, Ms. Hunter spoke on behalf of Mr. Charles Harless, a resident on Apple Valley Road, who could not be present this evening. Ms. Hunter said that Mr. Harless wanted to express his concerns regarding traffic and trucks, air Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2163 Minutes of December 19, 2007 -5- quality, and pollution from construction as well as the increased traffic volume. • Mr. James Gibson, the owner and developer of Shady Elm Farms, located on the southern portion of Shady Elm Road, said that Shady Elm Farms was Frederick County's first "green" subdivision. Mr. Gibson said he was also the builder of the first "green" home in Frederick County. Mr. Gibson's concerns included the environment and aesthetics. He spoke about the growing public awareness of protecting the environment for future generations. Ms. Kitty Hockman- Nicholas, from Hedgebrook Farms and The Herd's Inn, said Hedgebrook Fanns has been in her family for 101 years. Ms. Hockman- Nicholas talked about everyone's role in being stewards of the land and water. She said Hedgebrook Farms is currently partnering with Virginia Tech on a wetlands project involving water quality testing of the Opequon Creek. She talked about ways her farm operates to protect the environment Ms. Hockman- Nicholas said she has three platted residential lots on her farm, parallel to Shady Elm Road, and she asked for protection of their views, their safety, and their land with responsible development. She suggested that the proposed industrial development be a "green' project with green space, green parking lots, solar lighting, wind or solar power, and dense buffers. Mr. Richard (Rick) E. Piger, Jr., 130 Heckman Court, said he moved away from one industrial park and now finds himself about to be living neat to another, which he disliked. Mr. Piger said he found no benefits about living next to an industrial park, however, there are many disadvantages he wanted to share, such as pollution from long -term idling of tractor- trailers, extended hours of operation, noise, crime, and quality of life issues. He believed the new highways need to be in place before the industrial development begins; otherwise, there would be horrendous traffic problems on local roads. • Mr. Jeffrey M. Surratt, a resident on Heckman Court on Shady Elm Road, said that whenever land is developed in the B 1, B3, M 1, or M2 Zoning Districts that is adjacent to land used for residential purposes in the RA District, a "Category C" buffer should be provided on the land to be developed. Mr. Surratt said this property should be accountable in providing the maximum landscaping buffer adjacent to residential and he cited the specific sections of the County Code, Mr. Gregory Brown, a resident on Hockman Court, questioned a continent made at a previous meeting that the County has a shortage of M I property and the best use of this property was for M 1 uses; he wanted to know how much undeveloped and/or vacant M I property currently exists in Frederick County. He spoke about all of the projects currently underway and the cumulative traffic impacts these projects would create on Apple Valley, Shady Elm, Springdale, and Route 11. Mr. Brown had questions about the economic benefits for the residents of Frederick County, such as the amount of tax revenue and employment opportunities, versus how much the project will cost tax payers in terms of infrastructure. He spoke about the adverse impacts of traffic, safety, and aesthetics. Mr. Warden Jenkins, a resident on Soldiers Rest Lane, was primarily concerned about safety. Mr. Jenkins said the road was just recently upgraded from a dirt road to tar and gravel; he was concerned that inclement whether could cause the road to be unsafe. Mr. Jenkins was not in favor of developing land until the roads were available to handle the traffic. He said the bridge over Route 37 on Shady Elm Road has been in bad condition for the last six months and no one is repairing it; he thought that was one of the first things that should be done before heavy trucks started using the bridge. E Frederick County Planting Commission Page 2164 Minutes of December 19, 2007 a Mr. Darrell Habron, a resident on Hocktnan Court, had questions about the economic impact of the project, such as the cost of building the bridge and if the money was available. Mr. Habron believed the applicant's $200,000 proffer was not adequate to take care of the transportation impacts the project would create and he was concerned about exacerbating the existing traffic congestion in the area. He suggested the possibility of the applicant purchasing the needed right -of -ways from the adjacent Carbaugh property. Mr. Jack Bailey, a resident on Heckman Court, stated that his home fronts on Shady Elm Road and there is a school bus stop in front of his property. Because sections of Shady Elm Road were narrow, he expressed safety concerns with school buses, trucks, and daily traffic. Mr. Bailey said Shady Elm Road is not able to handle existing traffic. He was not in favor of approving the rezoning until the current road conditions change on Shady Elm. Mr. Chuck (Charles) Hunter explained existing traffic pattems in the area for the Commission. He said he almost gets run off the road twice a day traveling to and from work. He said the road needs to be widened before another industry is established on Shady Elm Road. Mr. James Fredman, a resident of the Back Creek District, was opposed to the rezoning because he would be adversely affected by the proposed industrial project. He read Section 165 -82, MI District, of the Frederick Comity Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Susan Claytor, a resident on 4273 Valley Pike, stated that traffic was her primary issue and it needed to be addressed. Ms. Teresa Ogle, a resident on Springdale Road, said she was employed by Frederick County • Public Schools as a bus driver. Ms. Ogle described the traffic congestion she experiences daily on the routes she drives the school bus. She said getting off Route 37 to come into Winchester on Route I 1 is very congested. She described the narrow conditions on Springdale Road and that she typically has to pull the school bus off the road for another vehicle to pass. Ms. Ogle said the traffic on Springdale Road was a major issue. Ms. Christine Kensinger, a resident of Hockman Court, expressed her concern about existing traffic congestion and increased traffic impacts with additional development. Mr. James Sluss agreed with the concerns expressed by the previous speakers. In addition, he questioned the numbers used in the applicant's TIA and he believed the results were flawed. Mr. Shiss said if this project is approved, the County will have to conunit to building the collector road and bridge, without fully knowing the costs. He also questioned the applicant's intentions for constructing a rural section roadway instead of an urban section. Ms. Joanna Brown, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, at the corner of Hockman Court and Shady Elm, said she agreed with the questions and concerns raised by her neighbors, who previously spoke. Mr. Gerald Wakefield, a resident and owner at 4330 Valley Pike and 4324 Valley Pike, expressed his concerns about the area traffic on Route I1 and Springdale Road. Ms. Gillian Greenfield said she was a commercial real estate agent, but had no interest in the project being discussed. Ms. Greenfield said that based on her six years' experience in cotmmercial real estate, she knows first hand there is a dangerous shortage of industrial property. She said for the economic balance and stability of the community, she thought it was imperative to continue moving forward with the Comprehensive • Policy Plan, which calls for industrial zoning on this 60 -acre parcel. Ms. Greenfield agreed the traffic was terribly congested; however, it was projects like the one proposed that create the catalyst for getting the collector roads started and completed. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2165 Minutes of December 19, 2007 -7- Ms. Andrea Habron, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Habron said the FAR figures of other developing property on Shady Elm and Apple Valley Roads were lower than that proffered by Venture One; she believed Venture One should limit their FAR to not more than .25. She read sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, dealing with development of business corridors, and raised the following points: the proposed project should be sensitive to environmental, visual, and transportation impacts, limitations should be proffered on building height, materials, and building size; there should be a separation of business and industrial uses; necessary facilities and infrastructure need to be provided; appropriate, quality development should be ensured through the use of performance and design standards; and the preferred variety of landscaping and buffering should be provided. Ms. Habron raised the possibility that industrial zoning may no longer be the highest and best use for this property, since the area now has so much residential. She spoke about the impacts to the community as a whole. She said the cost to the community for a bridge and to resolve transportation problems by continuing to bring industrial to this area far out weighs the benefits of a lax base from this project. Ms. Patricia Bailey, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, spoke about the proffer regarding design standards. Ms. Bailey believed there needed to be a building height limitation which is consistent with existing structures on Shady Elm Road. She also requested that loading areas be restricted to the rear of buildings. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public continent portion of the hearing. Mr. Sowers returned to the podiurn with final comments. Mr. Sowers agreed traffic was the number one issue with the citizens who spoke and he addressed comments questioning the validity of the TIA. • He agreed the application should mitigate the impacts of development, when a project is pursued for economic purposes, such as Ml. He pointed out that comments from both VDOT and the Planning Staff indicate this project's impacts have been mitigated. Mr. Sowers stated that the Eastern Road Plan recognizes the need for another connection to Route 11 and this application is the start to providing that connection by proffering a minimum of 1 100 feet of the future East -West Collector Road. He commented that if it is believed that the full roadway should be constructed before anything can be rezoned, there is probably not a developer that could afford to do that. He said this development was the first step towards fixing the problem. Mr. Sowers noted there were existing MI uses in this area and he commented on the existing buffers and berms along Shady Elm. He said the extent of the applicant's buffers and berms go well beyond anything existing along this road today. Mr. Mislowsky returned to the podium for final commments. Mr. Mislowsky said that Warrior Road began in a similar manner 12 -13 years ago as a 1,000 -foot section running north from Route 277 and only recently was completed up to Tasker Road. He said the only way these projects start is one piece at a time. He stated that the impacts identified in their TIA, which are caused by their development, are mitigated by their proffers. He asked the Commission to consider the value of their proffered road improvements, the signalization, and the other proffers. Commission members had questions for the applicant about how the three building permits trigger road construction. Mr. Sowers replied the three building permits guarantee there will not be just one single, large user on the property, which was an issue. He said there were a number of different triggers for construction of the 1100 feet of roadway. One is any construction in Land Bay 2; the second is when construction of the bridge commences, even without a single building permit on site; and three, if nothing happens on the site by December 31, 2013, the road would have to be built. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2166 Minutes of December 19, 2007 Commission members asked if there was enough room between the railroad track and Route 11 ® South to construct a ramp for the bridge. In addition, a question was raised about how many acres of the 57.7 - acre tract had been allocated for set - asides, roads, setbacks, etc. Mr. Sowers said the topography is favorable for construction of the ramp for the bridge. Regarding the amount of land allocated out of the 57.7 -acre site, Mr. Sowers replied that including the 1200 feet of road frontage on Shady Elm, the 20 -foot right -of -way dedication, the 20 -foot reserved area, the 25 -foot parking setback, and the 80 -feet of right-of-way for the East -West Collector Road, there is probably four -to -five acres allocated. Conuuission members inquired about building materials and the height of structures. Mr. Sowers said the intent is for brick, stone, stucco, and other masonry materials, but they could identify the exact materials, if desired. Mr. Ruddy addressed the structure height question, stating the maximum building height is 60 feet; however, in the MI and M2 Districts, there's the ability to increase the height up to 100 feet for automated storage with no occupancy. Chainuan Wilmot conunented there was still a concern about large buildings; she said there was no indication how big the buildings will be or what the uses will be in them. Chainuan Wilmot said she had safety concerns because of the road without a bridge. She said with large users, there are large numbers of trucks and traffic is limited to Shady Elm. Mr. Sowers replied there will be a large user located on the rear 30 acres, which could potentially be 400,000 square feet in size. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT came to the podium at the Commission's request. A member of the Commission asked Mr. Ingram if Shady Elm and Valley Mill will be able to handle the traffic with the build out of the property. Mr. Ingram said that based on the TIA, VDOT believes those roads will be able to handle the traffic. He also believed the initial 1100 feet was a good first step with getting the connector road into place. Mr. • Ingram did not foresee any funding coming from the State any time soon. Traffic impacts remained a concern for the Commission and they agreed this was a challenging area from a transportation perspective. Commission members recognized the value of the applicant's proffer and the extent to which the applicant committed to mitigating his project's transportation impacts; however, they could not ignore the growing transportation problems in this vicinity and believed they needed to consider the broader community. They did not see how anything was done to mitigate the impacts of traffic going right and left on Shady Elm Road, and the uncertainties regarding Springdale Road and the bridge remained. They were uncertain if one project, or even two, could solve the area's transportation dilemma. It was suggested that if there was some commitment from adjoining properties, the County, and VDOT to complete the road out to Route 11, they would be more comfortable about the applicant's first step. Other Commissioners agreed, but it was pointed out that the Carbaugh property was not yet within the Sewer and Water Service Area. They agreed this zoning was appropriate for this area, but were concerned that the timing for doing so was not at the present. The possibility of incremental development to correspond with certain phases of road improvements was suggested. With this possibility, the land could be rezoned; but, the county would have some certainty there would not be a complete build out of the property with a k land use before the infrastructure was in place. Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the rezoning with the proffers offered. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr, however, the motion was defeated by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE) Kerr, Unger NO: Molm, Triplett, Kriz, Oates, Morris, Watt, Wilmot • ABSTAIN Manuel (Note: Commissioners Thomas, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission 1 Page 2167 Minutes of December 19, 2007 • Commissioner Watt next made a motion to table the application for 30 days to allow the applicant time to work with the staff on other possible considerations for transportation. This motion was seconded by Conunissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table for 30 days Rezoning Application 408 -07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M I (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and warehouse uses, to allow the applicant time to work with the staff on other possible considerations involving transportation. The majority vote to table was as follows: YES (TO TABLE) Unger, Watt, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Morris, Oates ABSTAIN Manuel (Note: Conunissioners Thomas, Ours, and Light were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING • Master Development Plan 415 -07 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, for commercial uses. The property is located adjacent and east of Route 522, .50 miles south of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 50. The property is further identified by P.I.N. 64 -A -A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this master development plan (MDP) due to a possible conflict of interest. Ms. Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, reported that this master development plan (MDP) application is a proposal to develop 24.4 acres of land, zoned 132 (Business General) and 133 (Industrial Transition) with commercial land uses. Ms. Perkins said there are no proffers associated with this property. She said access to the property will be off existing Wincrest Drive, which connects to Route 522, as well as one full commercial entrance onto Front Royal Pike. Ms. Perkins stated this property has adequate access to Front Royal Pike, via Wincrest Drive, as well as an inter - parcel connection into the Holiday Inn property. She said the staff is recommending the full commercial entrance onto Front Royal Pike be eliminated to reduce the number of entrances on the arterial road. Ms. Perkins said that with the development of this property, Wincrest Drive will be upgraded to State road standards; however, there is no guarantee it will be taken over by the State. Ms. Perkins said the MDP is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Policy Plan, however, the applicant should consider removing the full entrance onto Route 522. Chairman Wilmot asked if Wincrest Drive was located on this site or the property to the south. Ms. Perkins replied that Wincrest Drive is located on the subject property. Commissioner Morris said the MDP •, shows a sidewalk provided along the property frontage with Route 522. He asked if the sidewalk would be provided for the entire length of the property and Ms. Perkins replied yes. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2168 Minutes of December 19, 2007 -10- • Conunissioner Mohn asked if the applicant had met all the entrance spacing requirements on Route 522, even with the full entrance. Ms. Perkins replied yes. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., was present to represent this project. Mr. Sowers confirmed that Wincrest Drive was on their property and entrance spacing requirements have been met. Mr. Sowers pointed out the existing entrance onto Route 522, which will be upgraded. He said the importance of that particular entrance is if the property develops in multiple parcels for B2. He explained that commercial users will have other access besides the Holiday Inn parking lot and private travel lane. Mr. Sowers added that a sidewalk along Route 522 will be provided, even though it is not a requirement. Conunissioner Oates thought it would be beneficial to have an inter - parcel connection back by the fire department for access around to Costello Drive. Mr. Sowers said if the property is developed for small B3 users, it would be appropriate, however, it depended on how many users and the layout for the property. Regarding the entrances on Route 522, Conunissioner Morris asked if the applicant was assuming both left and right turns for the egress. Mr. Sowers replied yes; however, as they move towards the site plan stage, the final determination will be made by the County and VDOT. Mr. Somvers noted this is north of the proposed relocated Route 522 and ultimately, they will not have to cross lanes of traffic. Chairman Wilmot inquired if the property to the south would also be served by Wincrest Drive and Mr. Sowers replied yes. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak. t Mr. Tom Jackson, the owner /operator of the Holiday Inn, said he did not want commercial traffic driving through the hotel parking lot because it is designed for hotel use. Mr. Jackson said they agreed to inter - parcel connection considering that whatever was next door to them, they would logically like some access without going back onto Route 522; however, he did not want this to be the main thoroughfare. Mr. Jackson said there would be safety issues with commercial traffic and children, pedestrians, people parking their velucles in the hotel parking lot. Mr. Jackson said he supported the extra access onto Route 522 to keep all of the traffic from just driving through the Holiday lim parking lot. Mr. Mike Morrison, Vice - President with Hospitality Hotel Group, which also operates the Holiday Inn, reiterated the continents of Mr. Jackson, Mr. Morrison said they have dealt with this type of situation in the past and the cross traffic presents a dangerous situation for hotel guests and others using the facility. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend approval of the MDP. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Molm and unanimously passed. 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2169 Minutes of December 19, 2007 NEW • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan 915-07 of Shenandoah University, submitted by Patton Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, for commercial uses, located adjacent and east of Route 522,50 miles south of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 50. (Note: Commissioner Manuel abstained. Commissioners Ours, Light, and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations Section 23F Setback Requirements Handicap Accessible Ramps Senior Plainer, Candice E. Perkins, reported that staff is proposing an ordinance revision to allow the Zoning Administrator to permit handicap ramps to extend into required setback areas when no other alternatives are available. Ms. Perkins stated that Section 165 -23F, Setback Requirements, allows some features to extend into required setback areas; however, this section does not provide any opportunities for handicap ramps to extend into these areas. Ms. Perkins read the proposed ordinance for the Commission. She said this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) on October 25, 2007, and the DRRS endorsed the amendment as presented. The Planning Commission was in favor of this amendment, as presented. Discussion of an amendment to the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations Section 47 Landfills Junkyards Trash Disposal, and Inoperable Vehicles — Trash Storage Facilities Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this proposed ordinance revision is in response to issues with interpreting the code in regards to dumpsters and the screening of dumpsters. Ms. Perkins said the existing trash section in the ordinance is vague and does not contain specific screening requirements. She said the ordinance also combines residential and conmiercial /industrial trash container requirements and requires them when one or more residence or use shares a lot. Ms. Perkins said the intent of this revision is to separate residential and commercial /industrial container requirements. She explained that residential will remain dependent on more than one residence sharing a parking lot, but commercial /industrial will require outdoor trash containers or other means for all developments. In addition, the ordinance will be revised to state that all refuse shall be contained within a completely enclosed facility and the enclosure shall consist of a six -foot opaque fence or wall with an opaque gate. Ms. Perkins said the proposed amendment was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcormnittee (DRRS) at their meeting on September 27, 2007 and was endorsed as presented. • Frederick County Planning Commission 11age Z I iu Minutes of December 19, 2007 -12- • Commissioner Oates said during the DRRS meeting, a question arose about the need for screening for commercial /industrial refuse containers when they are already inside an enclosed storage area. Ms. Perkins said that if the storage yard is already surrounded by a six -foot, board -on -board fence, or a double row of evergreens, then the trash container would not have to be screened. Commissioner Moln asked if a chain -lint: fence with slats would be considered to be opaque. Ms. Perkins replied that under the Definitions section of the zoning ordinance, a chain -lint: fence with slats is prohibited from being classified as opaque. The Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed amendment as presented. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS WITH MODIFICATIONS Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that in conformance with the adopted Planning Commission Bylaws, each November the Commission shall conduct an annual review of the bylaws. He said at the Commission's November 7, 2007 meeting, it was noted that a slight grammatical modification to Section 8 -3- 3 was warranted. He commented this modification does not change the intent or application of the bylaws. Chainnan Wilmot pointed out that on Page 6, Item 8 -3 -3, second sentence, the word, representative was changed to representatives. . The Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed change to the bylaws. OTHER MPO UPDATE BY DEPUTY DIR ECTOR- TRANSPORTATION, JOHN A. BISHOP Deputy Director- Transportation, John A. Bishop, came forward to provide the Conmussion with additional detail on the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) activity update that Commissioner Kriz referred to earlier in the Transportation Committee report. Mr. Bishop pointed out that Mr. Charles DeHaven, Jr. is Chairman of the Transportation Committee and is also one of the Transportation Committee representatives on the MPO Policy Committee. Mr. Bishop began by speaking about the Route 37 Access Management Study. He said the goal of this study has been to examine the interchange situation, both existing and what is hoped for long -term, and how these objectives can be reached while still meeting the needs for adequate transportation, which is a LOS (Level of Service) C. Mr. Bishop said although the draft final report contains improvements, it is not a perfect solution. He said the two alternatives that received the most favor still have limited areas that do not meet LOS C. He noted that the final plan has been received and is expected to be released shortly for locality review. Mr. Bishop next talked about the Route 11 Access Management Study. He said they are expecting to receive a presentation on the final draft of the report on January 15, 2008 at the Technical Advisory • Committee meeting. He commented this is purely an access management and corridor study, which encompasses a significant part of Route 11, within the City of Winchester, and southward into the County to Salem Church Road. Mr. Bishop next updated the Commission on the Route 7 Corridor Study. Mr. Bishop said this study has Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2171 Minutes of December l9, 2007 -13- many of the same goals as the Route 11 Access Management Study. Along with access management, they are examining issues such as commuter traffic, truck traffic, and development planning. In conclusion, Mr. Bishop spoke briefly about the Transit Study and multimodal grants. He stated the MPO has been a significant resource for the County in these studies and the community had benefited from this. He named several recent studies that have been grant- funded and the amounts that had been awarded. PRESENTATION OF A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ROBERT A. MORRIS SHAWNEE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE On behalf of the entire Planning Commission, Chairman Wilmot presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Commissioner Robert A. Morris, retiring Shawnee District Representative, and thanked him for his many years of service to the Planning Commission and the County. Chairman Wilmot read the resolution for everyone present. PRESENTATION OF A GIFT OF APPRECIATION TO LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI, LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION On behalf of the entire Planning Commission, Commissioner Moms presented a gift of appreciation to Mr. La\wTence R. Ambrogi, the Planning Commission's retiring legal counsel and thanked him for his many years of service to the Planning Commission and the County. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. by a unanimous vote. submitted, ,(_(,Ar -Q Wilmot, Chairman Eric RXLq/rence, Secretary • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2172 Minutes of December 19, 2007