Loading...
PC_08-20-03_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chainnan DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Conuuissioner Light reported that the CPPS has begun the groundwork for discussion of the Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 i orth Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 20, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shax nee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard Shickle, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/11/03 Mtg. rural areas studies. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 08/19/03 Mtg. Planning Director; Commissioner Gochenour reported that the Planning Staff had applied for and received a grant • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1125 -2- • from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) in the amount of $8,000.00. She said the purpose of the grant is to fund a project to provide training to the HRAB and will be used to hire a consultant to provide assistance to the HRAB in the form of training to improve mediation skills, to improve communication skills, and to improve the HRAB 's ability to effectively review land use proposals and make recommendations. She of operational and said that in addition to the training program, the SVBF has suggested the development review guidelines for the HRAB as part of the project. W inchester Planning Commission (WPCI - 08/19/03 Mtg. Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, reported that the primary issue discussed by the Winchester City Planning Commission involved a conditional rezoning of the rear area of the Virginia Apple Storage facility which has an entrance on Valley Avenue. Mr. DiBenedetto stated that the proposed parcel to be rezoned, which conforms with the City's Comprehensive Policy Plan, is behind some residential areas; therefore, the Commission must consider issues regarding road place ment, etc. He said the best place for the road, unfortunately, is through land that was set aside for open space and the Parks and Recreation Department will have deal with that. He said that although this was likely to be a fairly good plan, it was tabled until some additional problems can be worked out. Mr. DiBenedetto said that other issues discussed involved water run -off. • Chaintnan DeHaven said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on all matters dealing with Rezoning Application #406 -03 of Stephenson Village due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman DeHaven turned the conduction of the meeting over to Vice Chairman Thomas. m CITIZEN COMMENTS Vice Chairman Thomas called for citizen comments at this time. Vice Chairman Thomas announced that the Commission will be considering the Stephenson Village rezoning as a public meeting this evening, due to the fact that the public hearing was already held on July 16, 2003; therefore, citizen comments on this rezoning will be taken during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. Vice Chairman Thomas added that citizen comments will be limited to three minutes in order to allow adequate time to hear all the comments and to allow the Commission adequate time to discuss issues. The following persons came £onward to speak regarding the Stephenson Village rezoning: Mr. William (Bill) Shepherd, a resident of Gainesboro District and a candidate for the Board of Supervisors, believed insufficient information has been given to the Board of Supervisors and the public regarding the proposed rezoning. Mr. Shepherd disagreed with the applicant's conclusions that the project will provide the County with $38.1 million over its 23 -year life and that the project will not cost the Frederick • County taxpayer. Mr. Shepherd said that Mr. Samuel (Sam) Lehman, Michael (Mike) McMillan, and himself Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1126 Minutes of August 20, 2003 -3- • • • have perforated a fiscal analysis using readily - available County data and the applicant's data which details their findings. Mr. Shepherd handed out the information to the Commission and to the news media. Mr. Shepherd suggested that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors defer further consideration of this project until the County's revised Impact Model is available to more accurately evaluate the proposal. Mr. Timothy (Tim) Laporte, a resident of the Opequon District, asked that the Commission carefully consider any rezoning requests from Rural Areas to R4 District; he believed the consequences of acting now and setting a precedent will affect Frederick County for generations. Mr. Laport preferred to see any major revision delayed until the air study, the water study, and the revised impact model was complete in order to determine the true impact to the taxpayers. i Mr. Kevin Kennedy, a resident of Gainesboro District, referred to a quotation made by author Thomas (Tom) Hilton, regarding planned community developments, in which Mr. Hilton stated that the wrong place to build big developments is on virgin land and the best place to build planned communities was on dead areas, such as big cities. Mr. Kennedy believed Mr. Shockey was looking at the wrong land for his development. Mr. Kennedy hoped that the Planning Commission would do a better job of representing the citizens on this issue than the Board of Supervisors has done. He referred to the results of the informal surveys that had been conducted in which 90 -95% of those polled opposed the proposed development. He believed the proposal had many unanswered questions, in particular, that Mr. Shockey would likeithe county to give up control of the direction of the project once it has been approved. In addition, Mr. Kennedy was concerned about the reduction in the amount of commercial development proposed and he questioned how 33 acres of commercial could support 2,800 homes. In conclusion, Mr. Kennedy described the proposal as a massive commuter village and he believed the traffic was also a significant matter that needed Ito be considered. the families with children, empty nesters, and retirees. He pointed out the wide - ranging projections for the proposed commercial and industrial portions of the project, some of which are lower than required by the R4 Zoning District. Mr. Cochran stated that in spite of the lack of a complete master, plan and very unclear projections about the final mix of residential types, commercial space, and industrial use, Stephenson Associates has continued to claim their development will not cost the citizens of Frederick County a dime. Mr. Douglas (Doug) Cochran, a resident of the Stonewall District, expressed his concern that if Stephenson Associates does not initially provide a complete plan, the County will have no legal recourse if issues arise later. He believed Mr. Shockey was submitting only half of a plan and was asking the County to take the remainder on faith. He remarked that the very real potential for adverse environmental and economic results calls for a thorough plan, not an exercise in faith. Mr. Cochran was concerned about the financial impact to the community, as he could see no sound basis for estimating the number of sIingle residences versus Mrs. Pamela (Pam) Kennedy, a resident of the Gainesboro District, was concerned that all of the information and statements provided by Stephenson Associates were untrue, especially their statement that the citizens of Frederick County would not bear any impact costs generated by the proposed development. She disputed the claim that Stephenson residents had sufficient input into the process of the proposal; she was concerned about the volume of traffic that would impact Routes 7, 11, and 1 -81 ; she was concerned that some of the proffered land was to be used for athletic playing fields and the taxpayers would have to bear the cost of the construction these fields. Mrs. Kennedy believed the rezoning should be postponed until all of the pending studies, water, economic, and air - quality, had been completed. Frederick County Planting Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1127 4- Mr. Samuel (Sam) Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, was concerned that the land proffered in the application was valued at $30,000 per acre while it was purchased at $3,000 per acre only eight years ago. Mr. Lehman stated that without the R4 District zoning, the land proffered was not worth $30,000 per acre. Mr. Lehman stated that the County's new impact model doubles the estimated impact costs per dwelling for projects similar to Stephenson Village; he explained how the calculations for the new model were derived. Mr. Lehman also commented about the Braemar development that was shown as an example of how Stephenson Village is envisioned; he stated that the tax rate in Prince William i County is three times more than the tax rate in Frederick County. Ms. Vicki Weston, a resident of the Back Creek District, was concerned about water availability. She disputed the projected "gallons per day" estimated to be produced from the various water treatment plants described in the Sanitation Authority's capability study. She presented a list of 23 individuals in the Back Creek District who have lost either their wells or springs. Ms. Weston was concerned about the depletion of wells and springs used by existing residents in order to take care of Steph1 nson Village's water needs. Mr. William LoNv4s, a resident of Stonewall District, raised the issue of the traffic impacts, not only to the Route 1 I Interchange with I -81, but also to the Route 7 interchange. Mr. Lowts said that he travels Route 7 to Ashburn daily for work and was concerned about the possible traffic congestion he may encounter at the Rt. 7 and I -81 intersection. In addition, he said his property adjoins the proposed Stephenson Village project and he was concerned about construction noise and dust over the course of its development. He said that despite the offer to existing residents to connect to the Sanitation's water and sewer system, he believed the majority of his neighbors probably couldn't afford the hook -up fee because are elderly or are ® of retirement age. He was also concerned about the affect of construction on his an d his neighbors septic fields. There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice Chairman Thomas closed the citizen comment portion of the meeting. ---- --- - - -- -- PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning 406 -03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Green-way Engineering, to rezone 821.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. This property is located east of Milbum Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (Route I 1 North). The properties included with this application are identified with Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -31 [portion], 44-A- 3 IA, 44 -A -292, and 44 -A -293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. COMMUNITY DESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT (Rezoning Exhibit F) MODIFICATION 91 - § 165 -71 Mixture of Housing Types Required • Allow larger percentage of total residential units to consist of types included under townhouse, multi- family, and active adult categories. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1128 -5- ® Modify ordinance limitation of 40% to permit such types to comprise up to 60% of overall residential program. Action - Recommended Approval i Conunissioner Morris inquired if the percentages affect allowable maximum density for any project or if the percentages change according to housing types. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the percentages affect only the housing type and have no impact on overall density. I Mr. Wyatt explained that the requested modification does not increase the percentage of the number of units that can be multi - family, but it allows for a greater area of the total land that is proposed for residential to have a particular housing type. Commissioner Unger asked for the percentage used for density of houses per acre. Mr. Wyatt replied that the overall density for the proposed development with the reduced acreage is 3.5 units per "acre and the R4 District ordinance allows 4.0 units per acre. Conunissioner Ours inquired if it was still the intent to use innovative housing types in the development of the project. He referenced a home design characterized as aduplex, but had no common walls, except for a common garage wall. Mr. Wyatt confirmed that the use of innovative housing types was indeed planned and the particular design described was actually proffered in the modifications document, as well as the proffer. Mr. Wyatt said that this design would be considered a duplex and would be part of the 40% restrictive area. Commissioner Rosenberry was concerned that the result of this modification would be townhouse and multi- family units as an exception to the ordinance instead of the senior citizen housing described. Mr. Wyatt replied that the exception to the ordinance is for the use of land area, not for dwelling unit totals. Mr. Wyatt said that the assurance is in the mixed residential matrix that is part of the GDP and part of the proffer; he said it guarantees a certain percentage of single - family dwellings, a certain percentage of townhouses, a certain percentage of multi - family, and a certain percentage of active adult. Mr. Wyatt stated there will be a wide range of housing types and choices, but not a predominant housing type. Upon made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner I Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of MODIFICATION 41-§ 165 -71 Mixture of Housing Types Required to allow the Mixed Residential Matrix to govern the categorization of housing types and the residential mix for Stephenson Village. The majority vote on Modification #I was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas NO: Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent froml the meeting.) u Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1129 E MODIFICATION 92 - § 165 -69 Permitted Uses §165- 72B(2) Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan • Allow specific housing types not currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. • New types identified as carriage house, non -alley carriage house, cottage house, • Establishes dimensional standards for new unit types. • Proposes alternative dimensional standards for townhouse and small lot units. Action - Recommended Approval u E Commissioner Rosenberry made the point that if the requested housing standards were acceptable, then the zoning ordinance should be changed to allow them, it as an exception. Other commissioners agreed and Vice Chairman Thomas advised already on the Planning Staff's work program for the Commission. No other issues of with this modification request. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by courtyard cluster. ypes and dimensional dead of treating them hat this was an item concerns were raised Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 42 - §165-69 Permitted Uses and §165-72B(2) Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan to allow new housing types in Stephenson Village as identified in Section 21 of the proffer statement and pursuant to the dimensional standards delineated in Rezoning Exhibit F. In addition, alternative dimensional standards ;; be acc?pted fnr single - family small lot and townhouse housing types in lieu of the current RP District requirements. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Straub, Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Triplett, Rosenberry, Thomas Page 1130 -7- ® MODIFICATION #3 - §165 -72D Commercial and Industrial Areas §165 -72M Non - residential Land Use Phasing Allow land area dedicated for commercial uses to be limited to 4% of gross project area. Allow commercial uses to be developed in centralized manner. Ordinance requires minimum of 10% and maximum of 50% of gross land area for commercial and employment uses. Such uses are to be phased throughout project. Action - Recommended Denial Commissioner Straub recalled comments made by the applicant at a previous meeting noting that this will be a development where the residents can live and work. Commissioner Straub said she could not envision 5,000 people working on four percent of the developed area. She believed the ordinance standards were established for a specific reason and the Commission should not lower this particular standard. Commissioner Light agreed the minimum standard of 10% commercial should be achieved under the mixed use. He said the purpose of the mixed use was to maintain a certain percentage of commerciallindustrial and to provide a certain level of service to the County. Commissioner Light then moved to deny Modification 43. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. Commissioner Rosenberry called a point of order. He said that with the previous modifications, the applicant was given an opportunity to discuss the modification. Commissioner Rosenberry asked if it was possible to hear the applicant's comments. Commissioner Light and Commissioner Straub had no problems with allowing the applicant to speak. Vice Chairman Thomas invited thelapplicant, Mr. Wyatt, to the podium to speak. Mr. Wyatt said that the ordinance, as currently written, states, "a minimum of 10 %ofthe land area associated with an R4 development should be used for both commercial and industrial." Mr. Wyatt said that it has been shown that industrial is not a desirable land use in this area. Mr. Wyatt calculated that under the existing ordinance, the proposed development would be required to sustain 8o acres of commercial. By comparison, he said the Apple Blossom Mall is on a 60 -acre tract, the Martins Plaza on South Pleasant Valley Road is on less than a 28 -acre tract. Mr. Wyatt explained that they were anticipating a realistic, sustainable area for Stephenson Village, as well as the outlying community. He commented that this area was not going to be a major traffic draw like the South Pleasant Valley Road corridor or the Apple Blossom Mall. Mr. Wyatt believed that 33 acres, the amount they suggested, would be approximately the size of Creekside Village mixed in with the Sunnyside Plaza. In addition, Mr. Wyatt noted that it was unrealistic to expect commercial use in all phases of development throughout the project. Commissioner Morris inquired if the "Flex- Tech" concept would fit within the commercial area of this development. Mr. Wyatt replied no. He said that because they've eliminated land uses allowed in the B3 and the M1 Zoning District and the concept of "Flex- Tech" marries those uses with typical ® commercial, the flex tech would not be possible. He said they are proposing supporti retail and office use. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1131 Minutes of August 20, 2003 RZ C1 Commissioner Light referenced the proffer on Page 17 under Commercial Rezoning Applications, Part 2, stating, "...if a food chain store establishes within a three -mile radius... [the applicant] has the ability not to use that as a potential commercial site in the [plan]..." He asked Mr. Wyatt if he was reading that correctly; Mr. Wyatt replied no. Mr. Wyatt said that this rezoning is committed to f which is unprecedented. He said the applicant is committing a minimum of 60,000 squat which the economic model showed as the minimum amount of commercial needed to ins positive impact. He explained that if an anchor store lands within the three -mile ra permitted a two -year delay before committing to the 60,000 square feet. The 60,000 sqr remains regardless, whether it happens at a specific time, or whether there is a two -year an anchor store immediately outside of the development. Commissioner Light inquired i in the MDP process along the way and Mr. Wyatt replied that it would. Commissioner Light said he had envisioned an officelbusiness pa developing in this area, along the I -81 corridor. Commissioner Ours suggested that u: under this application because it was an M1 use. Vice Chairman Thomas commented responded to what they believed was the direction from the community and the Bo; removing industrial use from their request. Referring to the existing 10% requireme industrial, Vice Chairnnan Thomas questioned whether an un- achievable requirement v applicant. feet of commercial, re this project had a us, the applicant is re -foot commitment ;lay because there's his would be shown complex situation would be precluded at the applicant has I of Supervisors by and the removal of s being placed on the Mr. Wyatt stated that the modification request is for a minimum of 4%; he said that an office park would certainly be desired, and if the market is strong, they could increase the percentage amount. ® Conunissioner Kriz requested that Mr. Light repeat his motion. Commissioner Light repeated his motion to recommend denial of Modification #3. Commissioner Straub repeated her second to the motion. By a majority vote, the Commission recommended that Modification #3 be denied. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby Modification 93 -§ 165 -72D Commercial and Industrial Areas and § 165 -72M Non - reside to allow the applicant to limit commercial development to 4% of the gross land area of community, which equates to approximately 33 acres devoted to commercial land us modification would have relieved the applicant of the requirement that each phase of del residential land uses, thereby enabling commercial development to occur entirely with The vote was as follows: 11 YES (TO DENY) Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Morris, Light, Rosenberry NO: Unger, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Thomas ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 :commend denial of al Land Use Phasing planned residential Additionally, this opment include non- centralized node. Page 1132 6J MODIFICATION #4 - 5165 -72F Recreational Facilities Allow monetary value of "tot lot" facility to represent equivalent of one Proposed modification would clarify the measure to be used in determining the units represented by the applicant's recreational amenities. unit. of recreational Action - Recommended Approval !1 ,Y commissioner Straub inquired of staff if this modification would allow 1 money instead of building tot lots. Deputy Director Mohn replied no. He said that a tot conformance with the recreational unit requirement in the ordinance; for example, for el one recreational unit is required. He explained that a tot lot is identified as the equivalen but there are many other types of recreational units that can be implemented by an ap community. He said that the tot lot provides a unit of measure for the applicant's addition, Deputy Director Mohn stated that the Department of Parks and Recreation i� modification and, in fact, they've approached the Planning Department about amending this concept. He said the Parks and Recreation Department would evaluate the numb( a particular facility represents, utilizing the tot lot as the measure for the monetary pc (e applicant to proffer of is used to measure ;ry 30 dwelling units, of a recreational unit, licant in a residential imposed facility. In comfortable with this ie ordinance to reflect of recreational units Deputy Director Mohn continued, explaining that the applicant is seeking clarification that the tot lot will be the unit of value that will be used to evaluate their conformance because this clarification does not currently exist in the ordinance. He said the applicant has proposed the minimum value of a tot lot facility in the modification document, which will be used consistently in evaluating their facilities. No other issues or concerns were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Comm l issioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 44 - §165-72F Recreational Facilities, which will allow the monetary value of a tot lot facility to be the equivalent of one recreational unit for the purposes of determining the nu4er of recreational units represented by the applicant's planned recreational facilities. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, Thomas NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN DeHaven (Note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1133 10- • MODIFICATION #5 - §165 -72.I Road Access §165- 29.A(14) Motor Vehicle Access §144 -24.0 .C2(a).C2(b) Lot Access • Allow active adult/age- restricted community to be served exclusively by private streets. i • Enable active adult community to be gated. • Allow other housing types to be located on private access roads elsewhere in i e project. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light presented a scenario in which the development went ldefunct and the desire was to remove the gates and for the development to become a state -street system. He asked the Planning Staff if that would be possible, if this modification were approved. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the applicant is proposing to construct the streets to public road standards, which would enable VDOT to take the roads into the state system, if desired. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired why the applicant was seeking to use a system of private streets when the option for VDOT to maintain them was available. Mr. Wyatt replied that the private streets are designed for the gated community concept, which entitles a resident to live within a gated community consisting of a complete system of private streets, whether or not the residence is wit hIin 200' or 2,500' of a ® state road, and this was the purpose of the amendment. Mr. Wyatt said the ordinance is currently written mandating that every street in Stephenson Village must be a public street. Mr. Wyatt said they have met with both VDOT and the Fire Marshal's office to make sure those agencies were comfortable with the applicant's road design from an emergency access standpoint; he said their proffer statement is very specific regarding turning radius, etc. Commissioner Rosenberry questioned why anyone would want to have their homeowners association pay for road maintenance when the state is willing to do it. He asked what would be the incentive. Mr. Wyatt replied that with state maintenance also comes the other component, which is public access ability. He explained that with private street systems, streets are gated and are not open to the general public to drive on, unless as an invited guest of the community. He noted that when a consumer buys into that particular community, the consumer is aware that as part of the association dues, he is going to maintain the streets as a luxury of having a private street system. Commissioner Rosenberry asked if the VDOT representative, who was available for questions, could confirm what the applicant had said. Mr. Ben Lineberry, a VDOT representative, stated that public access to a Commonwealth of Virginia road can not be denied. Mr. Wyatt added that Braemar was a good example of a gated community with a private street system; he said the streets were built to either meet or exceed VDOT's standards, but they also were able to use niceties, such as decorative capping for crosswalks, etc. He said the bottom line is i at it is a market niche that is desired and working in other communities. I Commissioner Morris inquired if each age- restricted pod would be able to decide for itself whether or not it would be gated and, secondly, would the dues be paid to a general homeowners association ® or would each pod have its own homeowners association. Mr. Wyatt replied that this is basically a market Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1134 -11- ® decision; you believe the market is available and you will be successful designing and developing "X" acres and that people will buy homes within it. Mr. Wyatt stated that this decision is made by the developer; then, as a consumer, if you choose to buy a product within that community, you know what i you are buying into. Conunissioner Ours asked if the applicant anticipated using private streets in the non -age- restricted pods. Mr. Wyatt replied that they are not entitled to do so; he said the other communities would have state - maintained street systems. Commissioner Straub inquired if the pipe -stem roads would also be constructed to VDOT standards. Mr. Wyatt stated that all streets will be constructed to a dimensional standard that either exceeds or meets VDOT standards. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissii ner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 95 - § 165 -72.I Road Access, § 165- 29.A(14) Motor Vehicle Access, and § 144 -24. C .C2(a). C2(b) Lot Access, to allow the active adult portion of Stephenson Village to develop with a complete system of private roads, regardless of the mix of housing types provided. Moreover, in the mixed residential portion of the community, private access roads will be permitted to serve no more than five (5) single - family dwelling units, or a maximum of ten (10) units, if the private access road connects two public streets. The majority vote was as follows: ® YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt , Straub, Thomas NO: Oochenour ABSTAIN DeHaven r _.. . F7�l�er .:,ac ahegni frnm the meetlnE.) (Please note. ♦ V ' MODIFICATION 06 - §I65 -72M Phasing Allow applicant to be exempted from requirement to provide precise annualized phasing details. Applicant proffers to phase construction of non -age- restricted units at maximum rate of 8% per year. Action - Recommended Approval Conunissioner Light was concerned about the Planning Staff's ability to police the proposed phasing modification and he asked for input from the staff. Deputy Director Mohn stated that the standards within the applicant's proffer statement will govern the overall parameters of the development and should, theoretically, be easy enough to apply in subsequent MDP approvals. Deputy Director Mohn pointed out that Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1135 Minutes of August 20, 2003 12- • what it does lack, obviously, is a vision as to how the overall development will proceed throughout the site; although, through the GDP, the applicant has provided the generalized areas for each housing type and use envisioned. He commented that, basically, for this size of development, it's a preference for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not having knowledge of how, over time, the development will proceed, is critical to the perception of how the impacts will be mitigIated by the program. Vice Chairman Thomas commented that the applicant has stated there will be no more than 8% construction per year of the non - age- restricted housing; he calculated a maximum number of units, minus the age- restricted. It was Commissioner Straub's understanding that if the 8% is not constructed in a given year, the remainder is forwarded and added on to the next year. Deputy Director Mohn replied that was correct. Mr. Wyatt elaborated, pointing out that the existing ordinance states the schedule shall specify the year in which each phase will be completely developed and this is where the concern lies, being able to predict that situation. For example, he stated that they may be in a neo- traditional phase of development with 60 lots; 54 have sold and developed and then, for the next three to four years, the market goes flat, with six vacant lots. He said that what they are simply stating is that it may be a bit erroneous to specify the year in which they believe each phase will be completely developed. He noted that as an alternative, they've provided a phasing proffer that caps permits in general, regardless of what phase they're constructed in. Commissioner Morris said that typically, he would be concerned about this simply because of trigger mechanisms for transportation improvements; he believed it was easy for a developer to stop at 80% of development in order to avoid a proffer that may not kick in until the development is completed. He recognized, however, that since such a complete group of proffers associated with this development has been submitted and much of the infrastructure gets added up front, whether the build -out oecurs or not, he was entirely comfortable with Modification #6 in that regard. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 96 - § 165 -72M Phasing, exempting land bay development within Stephenson Village to follow a schedule of plan delineating the overall sequence of development or the concluding year of a given land bay's development. Phasing will be governed exclusively by the proffered limitation on permits for non -age restricted dwelling units specified in Section 2 of the Proffer Statement. Said provision stipulates that non -age restricted dwelling units will be developed at a rate not to exceed 8% annually. There is no phasing proposed for the active adult/age restricted housing component of the project. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, Thomas NO: Straub, Gochenour ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1136 -13- • MODIFICATION #7 - §165- 72.G.(I) Buffers and Screening • Allow distance reduction for inactive component of required road efficiency buffer. • Inactive buffer reduced from required width of 40 feet to 25 feet. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light asked for clarification on the purpose of requesting 25' versus 40' and, in addition, the applicant's intent on utilizing the modification some of the time, but not always. Deputy Director Mohn stated that from an ordinance perspective, the idea is to create a sufficient buffer distance to mitigate the impacts of traffic on adjoining residential uses. He deferred to the applicant in terms of why they believed reducing the buffer distance from 40' to 25' was appropriate in this case. Commissioner Straub assumed the footage allowed for widening of roads, should it be needed for road improvements. Deputy Director Mohn replied yes. He explained that the buffer, in addition to mitigating the impacts of the road and traffic, certainly provides assurance that the additional area is available, if necessary, for future road expansion with minimal impact to adjoining uses. Mr. Wyatt explained that the major collector road is, by proffer, a dedi i ted 80' right -of -way and takes into account the ultimate build -out of lane sections for the road system; he said there would not be a need to go into the berm area to achieve additional right -of -way. Mr. Wyatt explained that the existing ordinance standard allows a reduction in the 40' requirement down to 25' in some instances, but the exhibit clearly states that the six- foot -high screening unit requires a combination that includes shrub, hedge, fence, wall, mound, or berm. Mr. Wyatt noted that the modification allows for flexibility in design throughout the commmilty; for example, there may be a situation where, because of sight distance, it would be advantageous to have a smaller berm height. Additionally, he said that in some instances, the road will traverse an area that's heavily wooded, where preservation of the tree line is preferred, and this would accommodate that. In other I tanCCS, the trada:Onal .. hi�ffrr .x�irh earth herm and plantings would be used. Corrmtissioner Light inquired why a cross section had not been provided to the staff. Mr. Wyatt replied that it was included in the modifications document. He said the cross section specifies the provision of a minimum landscaped area 25' in width; the provision of 100 plant units per 100 linear feet, with no more than 50% of those plant materials being deciduous; and the provision of the six - foot -high screen/ opaque element as a combination of earth/wall/berm. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 97 - §165- 72.G.(1) Buffers and Screening, allowing for the inclusion of an inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer, which is required adjacent to the planned major collector road, varying in width from a maximum of forty (40) feet to a minimum of twenty five (25) feet. Although the distance buffer would be reduced in size, the screening comprising the inactive buffer area would exceed standard ordinance requirements. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1137 Minutes of August 20, 2003 -14- The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas NO: Straub, Gochenour ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) MODIFICATION 98 - §165 -68. Rezoning Procedure Allow use of proffered GDP instead of detailed MDP with rezoning. GDP would serve as conceptual template for all subsequent development appli MDP submission would occur following rezoning approval. Action - Recommended Approval • Noting that GDPs are primarily used in the industrial areas, Commissioner Morris asked the Planning Staff if they found the GDPs to be an effective tool for the staff and the county for site- specific approval. Deputy Director Mohn affirmed that it was consistent with what is being effectively utilized in rezoning actions for other zoning districts. Commissioner Morris raised the issue of ordinance changes occurring after GDP submission and whether or not ordinance amendments would be applicable to subsequent site plans and master development plans, as opposed to being grand- fathered. Deputy Mohn replied that as the applicant progresses through the more specific phases of development review and approval, such as the subdivision and site plan stages, the requirements of the ordinance become far more of an issue for the applicant and the county. Under this approach, he believed the opportunity would be certainly provided, as ordinances change, for those amendments to be applied throughout the course of development. Commissioner Morris believed the GDP provided a great deal of flexibility to implement ordinances in a more effective and efficient manner than the county might otherwise have the opportunity for. Commissioner Light expressed his concern for the absence of MDPs in the long term. He presented a scenario where, as years progress and purchasers go through the process of development, a situation may occur where complaints arise and the Planning Staff does not have the MDP to fall back on for enforcement. Commissioner Light was concerned that a complaint would not be able to be handled because there is no insurance or guarantee regarding the style of development. Vice Chairman Thomas advised that the MDP will still be submitted; he pointed out that screens and buffers are set in the ordinance by land use, whether a MDP is submitted or not. He added that the GDP will provide the locations for residential and commercial areas. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1138 15- Mr. Wyatt interjected that the purpose of the modification is for the ability to use a GDP in lieu of the MOP at the rezoning level. He explained that they were asking for consideration of MOP review in the R4 Zoning District at the same time it is considered in all other zoning districts. Mr. Wyatt stated that primarily, they were asking for the use of a GDP because if a full MDP showing specific housing types is initially submitted and over time, the specific housing type changes, for instance, a pocket of townhouses changes to court-yard cluster, they would be required to go back through a rezoning p iocess to modify their master plan under the current ordinance. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Modification 98 - §165-68 Rezoning Procedure, allowing a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) to be processed with the rezoning application instead of a detailed Master Development Plan (MDP). MDP submission would follow rezoning approval pursuant to the application sequence typical for development in other zoning districts as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Morris, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, NO: Straub, Gochenour, Light • ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) MODIFICATION #9 - §165 -133.B Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land §165- 141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents §165- 141.B.(2); (4); (8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents Allow MDP requirement to be fulfilled through a series of plans to accommodate incremental development of project. Ordinance requires MDP to address a given project in its entirety. Action - Recommended Approval Vice Chairman Thomas surmised there would bean overall MDP, but it wouldn't be submitted initially; it would be submitted incrementally, in the form of GDPs. Deputy Director Mohn agreed; he said the difference would be that the full MDP would be the final MDP, once all components have developed. is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1139 -16- Commissioner Straub inquired if the GDPs would be reviewed as a public hearing or a public meeting. Deputy Director Mohn replied that each of GDPs would be brought forward in the traditional way that a MDP is brought through the County process, as a public meeting which involves Planning Commission review and comment, as well as Board of Supervisors review and comment, particularly in an oversight capacity to assist in the administrative review. Deputy Director Mohn continued, stating that Modification 98 simply alleviates the requirement for a full MDP at the time of rezoning, effectively eliminating the need for a proffered MDP; whereas, Modification 49 effectively breaks up the MDP review process. He explained that rather than getting the MDP up front, involving the entire acreage as customarily done, this would be a series of MDPs as various components come on line and it would be updated by cumulative totals to evaluate conformance with proffers. Commissioner Ours inquired ifthe revised process would provide the staff and the Commission with more control of the overall development. Deputy Director Mohn believed control would be maintained either way; for example, if one MDP was submitted up front and then the applicant had to come through with a series of revisions over time, those revisions would still follow the traditional process and come before the Commission, the Board, and have staff review. Although, he said from the applicant's perspective, it provides a way of not having to look into a crystal ball and lay out something to the level of detail`that a MDP requires up front. Commissioner Ours commented that it wouldn't be the intend of any succeedin MDP to radically change preceding MDPs; it would gradually become one whole plan. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby reel mmend approval of Modification 49 - §165 -133.13 Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land; §165- 141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents; and §165-141.B.(2); (4),(8) Master Development Plan, R Contents, allowing the applicant to submit a series of MDP applications to address the incremental development of the project. This process would occur in lieu of a singular MDP accommodating the "total development" of the planned community. Each MDP would provide aggregate development data thereby ensuring effective monitoring of project status and conformity with proffered conditions. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, Thomas NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) C � J Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page t l40 -17- SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS Vice Chairman Thomas summarized that all modifications, except for requested Modification 43, will be sent to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation. He said that the recommendation for Modification 93 is for denial, which was the reduction in the industrial/commercii I percentage for the development. C ONTINUATION OF REZONING REQUEST DIS CUSSION Vice Chairman Thomas announced that the rezoning request discussion i ould continue at this point of the meeting. Deputy Director Mohn stated there were no substantial changes to the development program that was presented on July 16, 2003. Commissioner Gochenour asked the applicant what the water source would be for the project. Mr. Wyatt replied that the Frederick County Sanitation Authority would determine the appropriate source to serve the proposed development. Commissioner Gochenour replied that the applicant's response was too vague and was unacceptable. She believed this particular issue needed to be brought before the public and the surrounding area residents needed assurance that their quality of life will be maintained. In response to Commissioner Gochenour's statement, Mr. Wyatt said that the Sanitation • Authority is charged with providing water and sewer service to land within Frederick County; in addition, the Sanitation Authority provides reports, long -range studies, and the Authority has held work sessions with the Planning Commission on this subject. Mr. Wyatt remarked that they are doing what is being asked of them by the County, which is providing their projections for water usage to the appropriate experts for them to determine whether they can adequately service this development, either with current or future sources. Mr Wyatt stated that it was his understanding that the Sanitation Authority believed they could serve this project and the Authority's expectation is for the applicant to provide the regional infrastructure consistent with the Board's adopted plan, which his proffer statement commits to doing. Vice Chairman Thomas interjected that the Planning Commission, as a governmental body, has sources of experts for the type of information Commissioner Gochenour was seeking; the Sanitation Authority provides information on water sources, availability, capacity, and makes comments on applications as to whether they are comfortable providing potable water to the proposed developments. Vice Chairman Thomas also commented on VDOT's role, which provides experts to analyze transportation plans, regional networks, and to insure that developments either meet, exceed, or do not meet standards. He noted that reports have been submitted from both these governmental bodies, who have reviewed the applicant's proposal, and have commented that: 1) the Sanitation Authority states that potable water is available and will be available for the proposed development; and 2) VDOT has stated that they concur with the planned developments and have no problems with the traffic generation numbers and the capacity of the system with the improvements proposed. Vice Chairman Thomas believed it was inappropriate to ask the applicant to make comments on the quality of the governmental experts, the validity of their reports, or the decisions they make. LJ Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1141 -18- Commissioner Gochenour believed there were too many unanswered questions regarding the proposal; she did not believe there were adequate resources to sustain a community of this size. Commissioner Gochenour next moved to deny the rezoning application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. Commissioner Light next addressed the Commission by reading a prepared statement as follows: "In addressing the Board's actions on August 13, to establish the planned unit of development as the desired land use of the Shockey properties, the issue of the Comprehensive Plan conformance is no longer debatable. However, the plan- making process was notably flawed and the content of the amended plan was never fully examined or discussed. Throughout the process, from the CPPS meetings to the Planning Commission and then to the Board, it was never discussed in any manner. Most notably is the transportation issue. The Board of Supervisors approved a plan with no revision to e Primary/ Secondary Road Improvement Plan and, most notably, without addressing a major collector road moving traffic outside the Stephenson Village development, north and south. How can this area be expected to accommodate the increased traffic without the Comprehensive Plan reflecting the necessary improvements ?" "Second, not addressed is the impact of emergency services to a project ithe size and scope of Stephenson Village. If asked if this County actually planned for this land use, the answer be no. It only tried to accommodate a development entity. Without question, the land use plan is flawed; absolutely no road improvement proffers for Route 11, except for the interchange area with the Rutherford rezoning. The Route 11 corridor is being loaded and not even VDOT has looked at the cumulative effect of the traffic impact. Also, the fact that Woods Mill, Milburn Road to Redbud, may become shortcuts to avoid traffic lights has not been identified. It is hard to define the impact the traffic will have in this area. However, it is very clear that the roads cannot handle this load and support these projects. The County needs to clearly def how the impacts of residential development can become manageable in the Route 11 corridor." • "The impact of emergency services with this rezoning becomes a very important issue. Fire and rescue services are currently struggling, as evident with the reports in the papers recently. Inevitably, a cash proffer to Clearbrook Fire Department is today's way of doing business. Clearbrook Fire and Rescue is being impacted 100% by this development. It is hard to determine the long term effect and the immeasurable impact to the fire company even with the proffers that are in place. One suggestion is to have HOA's have a yearly payment to fire and rescue services." "With the R4 designation, Stephenson Village chooses to reflect 4% of the project towards commercial business while the ordinance reflects a 10% to 50 %. In order for this to be a planned community, business must take place inside the entity so there are employment opportunities close to the residents and limit the need for traffic impact outside the development. It is also important to provide a mixed use for the project to help pay its way for the tax base for all residents of Frederick County. To limit the commercial business of this proposal makes this project nothing more than a glorified RP rezoning, offering more variety of homes with alleys and private streets. The bottom line is, more residential homes and very little business is RP zoning any way you look at it." "To address the rezoning request of Stephenson Village, we must also address the land use plan. As Planning Commissioners, we are in a unique position to understand the importance of having a land use plan that addresses all phases of the impact and must recognize the responsibility to the public to address the issues that impact the quality of life. To ignore this issue is to ignore the trust put in us by the community. This land use plan is incomplete and does not address the impact of this development or any development with Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1142 19- RP zoning." "The density of this development creates impacts that make it undesirable. Thousands of housing units are an undesirable feature in this area of rural character of the County. It is impossible for us to see the tremendous impact to the Stonewall District and the entire County. Every development has been required in current standards to have a MDP. As each developed entity gets sold to other developers and years pass, there will be no one to accept responsibility for the problems associated with thisldevelopment." "With regard to the rezoning of Stephenson Village, the ability to rezone a property is a government -given right, policed through the ordinance written with intentions of providing safeguards to its surrounding community. And ask the question, have the impacts been mitigated to ensure the community that the governing body has acted in the best management and planning practices to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community as required by State law. It is my opinion that the Northeastl Land Use Plan, with its R4 designation and the rezoning of Stephenson Village, does not address the impacts of development. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has failed to provide an acceptable management practice to control the traffic impacts outside this development." "For these reasons, the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Stonewall District and Frederick County have been jeopardized. I, too, agree that this development should be turned down. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors has failed to do their job to make a complete Northeast Land Use Plan that addresses the impacts of this facility." Vice Chairman Thomas summarized at this point by stating that the Rezoning Application 406 -03 of Stephenson Village had been presented as 821.7 acres, which was revised tol794.6 acres because of core battlefield area being removed. Vice Chairman Thomas asked the staff if all agency comments had been incorporated and a positive response received from all governmental agencies. Deputy Director Mohn replied that positive responses had been received from all agencies with the application. Commissioner Rosenberry said he had a prepared statement that he w to read for the record, as follows: "Personally, I find the Stephenson Village proposal attractive. But, I find it to be bad for Frederick County. Let me explain. First, I note that those people who would live as neighbors object to this rezoning, by a large majority. Gn me whole, my issue is not so much Wiul the Shockey Stephenson h soa Village project specifically, as with any project of large residential development. Because there is so much land already eligible for by -right residential development in the County, rezoning additional large tracts raises a concern in me about the infrastructure required. By infrastructure I'm referring, for example, to the availability of water. A study is undergoing in this area and I think delay is appropriate, pending its outcome. As it is, the County already has to buy a large amount of water from Winchester. There's another study going on around air pollution and I think we ought to wait until that study's concluded before we decide a project as big as this. Another example of infrastructure is my common sense concern about this additional residential development's impact on traffic congestion, particularly in northeast Frederick County. So there's a number of people who have a different point of view on this. Therefore, I'm going to vote to deny this rezoning application, too." Commissioner Straub believed the proffer for land for one school was inadequate; along with her other concerns dealing with roads, air, water, and schools, she was concerned about the road going through the battlefield as an entranceway into the development. Commissioner Straub also expressed her concerns about the impacts of expanding the UDA by an additional 794.6 acres. 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1143 -20- Commissioner Ours pointed out that the 2,800 proposed homes will be developed over a 25- • year period which averages out to approximately 112 homes per year. He said that within the previous six to seven years, Frederick County has been issuing about 600 building permits per year. He believed the construction of homes will be precipitated by need. Commissioner Ours expressed I his concern about a prevailing attitude about not letting anyone else come to Frederick County to live. He stated that he has lived in Frederick County for 13 years and considers himself to be a Frederick County resident. He believed that anyone who wanted to live in Frederick County should have the right to do so. Since all the Commissioners had been given an opportunity for discussion, Vice Chairman Thomas called for the vote. YES (TO DENY) Rosenberry, Light, Gochenour, Straub NO: Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Because this motion failed, Vice Chairman Thomas called for a new m I otion. Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve Rezoning Application #06 -03 of Stephenson • Village with the revision reducing the requested rezoning from 821.7 acres to 794.6 acres, in order to preserve the core battlefield area; and, in addition, incorporating all of the requested modifications, except one, MODIFICATION 43 - § 165 -72D Conunercial and Industrial Areas and § 165 -72M Non residential Land Use Phasing, which was recoimnended to be denied. This motion was seconded by Conunrs Ours. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of RczGiiing n ^ v6 - vf. VA sub— $u- :t.e..a by Gre..... ay E « ng, t^ .,....,. ° 794.6 aere5 from R 4 (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, which includes property identification numbers 44-A-31 [portion], 44- A -31A, 44 -A -292, and 44 -A -293 of the Stonewall Magisterial District, and incorporates eight of the applicant's nine requested modifications, as follows: MODIFICATION 41 - § 165 -71 Mixture of Housing Types Required MODIFICATION 92 - § 165 -69 Permitted Uses and § 165- 72B(2) Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan MODIFICATION 94 - §165 -72F Recreational Facilities MODIFICATION 45 - §165 -72.1 Road Access; §165- 29.A(14) Motor Vehicle Access; and §144- 24.C2(a). C2(b) Lot Access MODIFICATION 96 - §165-72M Phasing MODIFICATION 47 - §165- 72.G.(1) Buffers and Screening MODIFICATION 48 - §165-68. Rezoning Procedure MODIFICATION 99 - §165 -133.13 Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land; §165- 141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents; §165- 141.B.(2); (4); (8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents 11 Frederick Count} Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 1 Page 1144 _21_ E 0 The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, Thomas NO: Rosenberry, Light, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN DeHaven (Please note: Commissioner Fisher was absent from the meeting.) Vice Chairman Thomas recognized one letter and one press release that were submitted to the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission unanimously accepted the letter and the press release into the official file for the Stephenson rezoning application. Vice Chairman Thomas next relinquished the Chair back to Chairman of the remainder of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, for conduction at 9:50 p.m. by a Charles . DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric . L n , Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2003 Page 1145