Loading...
PC_10-15-03_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES 0 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 October 15, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Richard C. Shickle, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk, CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 2003 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of August 20, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1174 -2- • COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 10/13/03 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is discussing how to proceed on updating the rural areas district. Transportation Committee - 10/07/03 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee considered the I -81 Improvements, which is in the Commission's agenda for consideration this evening. Commissioner Kriz stated that the Transportation Committee passed a resolution to leave all options open, but, in particular, to make sure that local traffic has good on/off access, no matter which plan is chosen. CITIZEN COMMENTS • Mr. James (Jim) Giraytys came forward to speak concerning the I -81 Improvements discussion, which was on the Commission's agenda for this evening. Chairman DeHaven stated that the Commission could receive Mr. Giraytys comments during the discussion of that item or under citizens comments, whichever he would prefer. Mr. Giraytys chose to deliver his comments during the Commission's discussion of the I -81 Improvements. AMENDMENT OF THE AGENDA Chairman DeHaven announced that the first item on the Commission's agenda, Rezoning # 1I- 03 of For My Kids, LLC / Shenandoah Honda, submitted by John Ross, to rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District has been removed from this evening's agenda because the property was not posted with the required public hearing sign. Chairman DeHaven asked if anyone in the audience had attended for this particular item, however, no one came forward. • Frederick County Planning Commission 'October 15. 2003 Page 1175 3- • PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) amendment to relocate a planned major collector road and to propose business land use in the vicinity of the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. This request has been submitted by G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., on behalf of property owner, Mr. George Sempeles, to facilitate preparation of a business and industrial development proposal for approximately 104 acres. The properties are identified with P.I.N.s 34 -A -2 and 34 -A -4 and are located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Abbe S. Kennedy, provided the background information and review. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the engineering firm representing the applicant, Mr. George Sempeles, stated that their initial traffic impact analysis determined an issue with truck traffic crossing into this area. Subsequently, they submitted an addendum to the transportation plan suggesting that all incoming truck traffic make a continuous right turn to the south on Rt. 11, turn left on Woodbine Road, and enter an industrial access into the site. He said that all traffic generated from the industrial site would leave by the Rt. 11 intersections. He said the only issue, essentially, is with in -bound • truck traffic; all automobile and employee traffic would pass straight through the intersection and would not be routed to the Woodbine Road connection. Mr. Maddox noted that they have discussed this alternative in committees, as well as with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He believed this site would be a valuable addition to the economic development plan for Frederick County, describing its 100 acres of ideally- sloped property adjacent to rail and an upgraded I -81 intersection with Rt. 11. Mr. Maddox said that VDOT suggested this alternative after reviewing the trip numbers. Further traffic impact analysis would be looked at it in depth during the rezoning phase. Commissioner Unger inquired if Woodbine Road would need to be improved. Mr. Maddox replied that Woodbine Road was previously improved with industrial access funding; however, if additional work is required, it would be identified and worked out during the rezoning petition, master plan, and construction drawing phase. Commissioner Straub commented that the major collector road terminates at Woodside Road, which doesn't have the ability to handle truck traffic. She also noted that the front of this property was being proposed to be business zoning and she was concerned that trucks and autos coming together in the business area would cause problems. She also inquired about a traffic signal. Mr. Maddox said the area would be designed for free - flowing traffic with a LOS C. He described the proposed four lanes plus an area to allow the lanes to line up with the Rest Church Road improvements. Mr. Maddox said the numbers do not indicate a traffic signal will be warranted. Commissioner Gochenour expressed concern with truck traffic turning right and stacking on Rt. 11 before entering Woodbine, especially with no traffic signal. Commissioner Gochenour was also • concerned about the mixing of truck traffic turning left, trucks entering the industrial area, and vehicles entering Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1176 -4- • the commercial area. Mr. Maddox said that in his opinion, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the amount of truck traffic turning left would not justify a traffic signal; however, he believed this issue would have to be decided in another forum. Mr. Maddox suggested that the decision that needs to be made this evening is if this is an acceptable alternative in the County's Transportation Plan for the Northeast Corridor. Mr. Maddox said that if it is, then he will proceed with the rezoning accordingly; however, if the Commission does not believe this alternative is appropriate and he proceeds with the rezoning, it would be over the objection of VDOT, as they consider this to be a better plan than the one currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT came forward to answer questions from the Commission regarding VDOT's possible future plans for the intersection at I -81. Mr. Ingram said it will be difficult to increase the distance between Rt. 11 and the interchanges and that is why VDOT recommended moving down to Woodbine Road, which would provide 1,000' of movement away from the intersection. He said VDOT viewed it not only to provide for the Sempeles property, but also for any future development that may occur on the other side of the railroad tracks. He said that as far as the traffic signal is concerned, VDOT will more than likely request an agreement at rezoning to monitor the traffic and if warrants are met, VDOT could request that a signal be installed. Mr. Ingram stated that from a transportation point of view, this seems to be the best way to clear the interchange and maintain a reasonable LOS. Commissioner Rosenberry commented that the proposal seemed to be a quick fix, however, in his opinion, there was a systemic issue there. Mr. Ingram agreed that it was quick fix and also the least expensive fix without physically moving Rt. 11 to the east. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to • speak: Mr. Lester (Mack) B. McDonald, an adjoining property owner, stated that his family has owned a trucking company in Winchester for 77 years and he has concerns about the families that live alongside this road, especially with the stacking trucks which could present a problem. Mr. James (Jim) Giraytys, a resident of the Back Creek District and a member of the Air Improvement Task Force for Winchester- Frederick County, pointed out on a map the location of the ozone monitoring gauge for Frederick County which was directly within the area under discussion. Mr. Giraytys said that Frederick County is out of compliance with the eight -hour standard for ozone protection. He said the temptation might be to move the gauge, unfortunately, the rules for where it is located are governed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the gauge is physically owned by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. Giraytys explained that his task force has been struggling to come up with strategies to bring this area back into compliance and the readings off this one single gauge will determine this area's compliance. He said that any type of development generating truck traffic will, without a doubt, raise the measurements for ozone. He made two points: first, if intense development occurs here, the gauge will not be representative of the entire county; and second, the planning process is flawed because the Commission does not have the capability to integrate science with land use planning. In conclusion, Mr. Giraytys remarked that this gauge is the only determining factor for whether the mitigation strategies developed for Winchester- Frederick County have brought this area into compliance with EPA in 2007. He said that whatever development occurs in this location will have an impact on what happens and how people will have to deal with mitigation for ozone throughout the entire county. • Frederick Counry Planning Commission . October 15. 2003 Page 1177 _5_ • Ms. Kathy Eland, a resident on Woodbine Road, said there are eight houses in this area. Ms. Eland was concerned about the impact of the truck traffic, she expressed concern for the safety of her children and the neighborhood children, and she was also concerned about environmental impacts. Since everyone who wished to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and noted that most of the issues raised were zoning issues and he assured the Commission they would be addressed at the appropriate time. Mr. Maddox did address a concern about traffic impacts on Rt. 671, near the interchange; he said the Comprehensive Plan calls for an additional access to the industrial area, thereby allowing Rt. 671 to remain a rural road. In addition, Mr. Maddox brought the Commission's attention to the fact that there have been numerous transportation improvements made at this intersection; he said this intersection was ideally suited and designed specifically for the County's Comprehensive Plan. He assured the Commission that the applicant had the ability to mitigate any traffic issues here. Commissioner Morris stated that the issue before the Commission was whether or not this proposal was a better transportation alternative than what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that if this alternative will better accommodate the traffic, and VDOT has testified that it will, then it should be approved. On the other hand, he said that if the original Comprehensive Plan for that collector road is better than this, then it should be recommended for denial. Commissioner Morris believed the proposed alternative was better than the original Comprehensive Plan proposal. • Commissioner Rosenberry believed the proposed alternative was probably a better proposal than what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan, however, he believed both alternatives were insufficient and this entire area had a developing traffic problem. He was also concerned about the EPA's monitoring station and the possibility that this gauge may be unrepresentative of the County as a whole. Chairman DeHaven said he appreciated Mr. Giraytys' comments concerning the ozone compliance issue, however, he did not believe the ozone gauge should be the sole issue that is considered for a Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment. Chairman DeHaven believed the issue to focus on was whether this proposal was better than the adopted plan. Commissioner Gochenour next moved to recommend denial of the amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan to relocate a planned major collector road. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. The motion failed, however, by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY) Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub NO: Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven ABSTAIN Light (Please Note: Commissioners Thomas and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) • Frede-ick County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1178 WE • Commissioner Morris next moved to recommend approval of the proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) amendment to relocate a planned major collector road and to propose business land use in the vicinity of the intersection of Route I 1 and Rest Church Road. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Fisher and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE) Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN Light (Please Note: Commissioner Thomas and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Waiver Request of Walter Gallahan for exceptions to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, §165 -54A , §165 -56A , and §165 -56B, regarding minimum lot size, state road frontage, and an exception to lot depth -to -width ratios. The properties are identified with Property Identification Numbers 45 -A -52 and 45 -10 -4 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. • Action - Recommended Denial Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Patrick T. Davenport, stated that Mr. Walter Gallahan is requesting a waiver of several subdivision ordinance requirements to enable approval of a boundary line adjustment between his property and an adjoining property, owned by Ms. Mary K.Heironimus. Administrator Davenport stated that both of the properties are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are located on Brucetown Road (Rt. 672). He said that the proposed boundary line adjustment would transfer approximately 0.59 acres from the Heironimus property (currently consisting of 1.77 acres) to the Gallahan property (currently consisting of 10.03 acres). Administrator Davenport said that Mr. Gallahan is requesting the following exceptions: 1) enable a boundary line adjustment of a parcel of land which is less than five acres in area to become smaller in area (§165-54A); 2) allow an exception for both parcels to have less than the 250 feet of State road frontage (§165-56A); and 3) allow an exception to the 4:1 depth- to-width ratio on Mr. Gallahan's parcel (§165-56B). Administrator Davenport also pointed out the possibility that the Gallahan property could be further subdivided or consolidated with an adjoining parcel to create a major rural subdivision with an access using a newly created state road frontage. Commissioner Morris inquired how the Gallahan property is currently accessed and Administrator Davenport pointed out the platted access on a map. Commissioner Morris inquired if the right - of -way was on the Miller property and Administrator Davenport replied that it was. Mr. Michael M. Artz, L.S. of Artz & Associates, P.L.C., land surveyor, introduced Mr. • Walter L. Gallahan, the applicant. Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1179 -7- Mr. Walter L. Gallahan, the applicant, said that his sole purpose for pursuing the purchase of this property is to create a safe access from his home out to the highway. Mr. Gallahan stated that his right - of -way goes up hill with a steep bank on either side; he said the bank is even with the roof of the car, so it's extremely dangerous to try and get out on the highway. Mr. Gallahan said that his objective was not to obtain more land, however, by purchasing this property from Ms. Heironimus, which she has agreed to, he would be able to shift his driveway down approximately 15 -75 feet, thereby putting it on a level in line with the highway. Mr. Gallahan commented that he couldn't say how many times they have almost gotten struck by an oncoming vehicle as they tried to get onto the highway. In addition, he mentioned that the hill on his driveway is so steep, in bad weather the fuel trucks have problems getting in. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Gallahan if, in his conversations with Ms. Heironimus, he had discussed purchasing simply a right -of -way to relocate the driveway as opposed to purchasing the land and Mr. Gallahan replied that Ms. Heironimus would rather go along with him purchasing the land. Commissioner Straub inquired of Mr. Gallahan if he would vacate the existing 50' right -of- way on the Miller property and Mr. Gallahan replied yes. Commissioner Gochenour asked Mr. Gallahan if his request was strictly for a safe access to his property or whether he had future intentions of subdividing his property. Mr. Gallahan said he had no intentions whatsoever of subdividing his property and his sole objective was to create a safe egress to the highway because it was a dangerous situation in its current condition. Mr. Michael Artz returned to the podium and stated that Mr. Gallahan's parcel could not be • further subdivided without a state road being built into his parcel. Therefore, even though this may be adding a small portion of land to his parcel, in order for Mr. Gallahan to further subdivide his parcel, he would need to have state road frontage and he would have to actually build a state road into his property. Mr. Artz said that Mr. Gallahan's primary goal is to relocate his right -of -way to a place that is safer. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if a future subdivision would need to be considered by the Planning Commission, if this exception was granted, or was it simply the applicant's choice later whether or not to subdivide. Administrator Davenport replied that the applicant could make the choice to subdivide later, however, he was just bringing that future possibility to the Commission's attention; he said it was certainly not a part of Mr. Gallahan's request to enable a subdivision at this time. Chairman DeHaven understood Mr. Gallahan's concern for creating a safe access, however, he believed it was possible to relocate the driveway without the land transfer. Chairman DeHaven stated that if the Commission grants the waivers, it would allow the possibility of additional lots being created in the future by simply constructing a state road into the parcel. A motion was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours to approve the request for exceptions to the subdivision ordinance requirements. This motion failed, however, by the following majority vote: • Frederick Cowity Planning Commission 'October 15. 2003 Page 1180 -8- • YES (TO APPROVE) Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, NO: Rosenberry, Fisher, Kriz, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven Chairman DeHaven called for a new motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher to deny the request for exceptions to the subdivision ordinance requirements. This motion passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY) Straub, Gochenour, Kriz, Fisher, Rosenberry, DeHaven NO: Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Ours (Please note: Commissioners Thomas and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSIONS • DISCUSSION OF I -81 IMPROVEMENTS Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that VDOT is currently deliberating with two separate business consortiums, Star Solutions and Fluor Virginia, Inc. about their proposals to improve I -81. Planner Camp said that both companies submitted their proposals to VDOT under the authority of the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA) which allows agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia to procure services of private companies. He explained that under requirements of the PPTA, all local jurisdictions that are affected by such proposals have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposals within a 60-day period starting when the proposals are received by VDOT. Planner Camp said that both the proposals were received by VDOT on September 5, 2003; therefore, Frederick County has until November 4, 2003 to provide VDOT with comments. Planner Camp continued, stating that the Transportation Committee expressed great concern, but also general optimism, about both proposals during their October 7, 2003 meeting. He said the members did not discuss which of the two proposals they thought was best; instead, acknowledgment was given that both proposals have their advantages and disadvantages. Planner Camp said the Transportation Committee recognized, however, that both proposals could do more to address local transportation needs and improve rail infrastructure along I -81. The Planning Commission agreed with the Transportation Committee that more needs to be done to adequately address local transportation needs. This included fully considering the possibility of collector /distributor lanes, better addressing local transportation plans, and making more improvements to interchanges. Despite the safety benefits of the improvements, the Planning Commission was disheartened with • the fact that both proposals are only designed to give a few years of adequate level of service after completion. Frederick County Planning Commission 'October 15, 2003 Page 1181 • Some of the other key concerns discussed by the Planning Commission included the impact that the road improvements would have on the environment; the effects on local businesses and homes; and how tolls would apply to local traffic. The Commission also believed that additional consideration of rail improvements in the I -81 corridor was warranted. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. James (Jim) Giraytys provided the Commission with some analysis, facts, and figures that he derived from attending presentations made by Star Solutions and Fluor. Mr. Giraytys stated that the primary issue is the truck traffic and VDOT has estimated that truck capacity would be exceeded by the time the improvements to I -81 are completed. He also provided some evidence suggesting the benefits of utilizing rail in conjunction with the I -81 improvements. He said that although the rail up and down 81 is totally unsuitable, the right -of -way exists for reconstruction. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, a resident of Red Bud District, believed the most critical element to serve the community was the typical section design. He believed that new interchange locations, as well as relocating existing interchanges, were two very important issues. He suggested that VDOT be advised to consider including within the proposals new interchanges, the relocation of existing interchanges if appropriate, the use of collector /distributor lanes, and if a PPTA proposal is ultimately accepted, would there be any flexibility available after the contract is awarded. The staff stated that they would forward all of the comments received to the Board of • Supervisors for their meeting on October 22, 2003. DISCUSSION OF PIPESTEM LOTS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee) has been evaluating a request from Greenway Engineering to allow pipestem lots as an alternative lot design in Frederick County. He said that pipestem lots are desired by the development community because they would allow greater flexibility during subdivision design. Planner Camp said that the ordinance recommended by the DRRS incorporates several key design standards; specifically, limiting the total number of pipestem lots in a development to no more than 5% of all lots, and restricting all pipestem lots except those with single -lot driveways. Planner Camp continued, suggesting that the proposed draft ordinance could be improved upon with a couple additional design standards to address setback and design issues, as follows: 1) A 20 -foot setback from other residential lots may be inadequate, because the house on the pipestem lot will be facing the side and/or rear of the house on the adjoining lot. This may limit the potential use of adjoining residential yard space. Staff recommends a 35 foot front setback against all property lines which adioin a res idential lot; and 2) There is some concern that the current ordinance will allow two pipestem lots to adjoin each other. This would allow two driveways paralleling each other and a housing layout which is inconsistent with traditional subdivision design. Staff recommends restricting pipestem lots that adioin other pipestem lots. .• Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1182 -10- ® Chairman DeHaven, a member of the DRRS, commented that the definition of pipestem lots proposed by the DRRS was intended to discourage pipestems; however, if there was any question of interpretation of the definition in the staff's mind, it was certainly worth clarifying. In addition, he noted that concern was expressed at the DRRS level about pushing the pipestem building envelope too far back with the 20' and 35' setback distance, however, it was pointed out that if 15' made the difference whether the lot would be useable or not, then perhaps the project design was poor to begin with. Chairman DeHaven stated that committee members were not opposed to giving the design community some flexibility because it can be an avenue for creative and constructive design work, but they did not want to see pipe stem lots become standard procedure. In addition, regarding the question of increased density, Chairman DeHaven noted that this construction is intended to be within the UDA and if all the other open space requirements of the ordinance are met, despite having the environmentally - sensitive areas in open space, it may be viewed as helping to fulfill the intent of the UDA, as opposed to working against it. He believed that if the opportunity to do some creative design was offered, it should not be too heavily restricted and there was definitely room for compromise. Overall, the pipestem lots ordinance amendment, along with the additional design standards offered by the staff, were well - received during the Planning Commission's discussion. The Commission advised the staff to proceed with the proposed ordinance as presented. DISCUSSION R EGARDING AN UPDATE OF REFERENCES IN THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES Planner Camp presented the proposed updates to the state code and other code references found in the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Planner Camp said that the state code references were out of date since Chapter 15.1 was updated to 15.2 a few years ago. During the Planning Commission's discussion, one commissioner remarked that staff has done an excellent job keeping the ordinances updated over the years; however, a comprehensive revision of the entire zoning and subdivision ordinances remains long overdue. The commission recognized that staff may not have the time to undertake this project because of other project priorities and suggested that the county may need to seek contractual support. No other issues were raised and the Commission recommended that the staff proceed with updating the code references as presented. • Frederick _County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1183 11- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Re ectfully submitted, e ��& — Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric RIA4Vx6nZoe, Secretary 11 • Frederick County Planning Commission October 15, 2003 Page 1184