Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_02-04-04_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 February 4, 2004. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven,, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Barbara E. Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - JANUARY 7, 2004 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of January 7, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1246 -2- • Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 01/29/04 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed buffer areas between the RP (Residential Performance) District, at the edge of the Urban Development Area (UDA), and the RA (Rural Areas)District. He reported that many ideas were presented and discussed. Commissioner Thomas anticipated considerably more discussion and he invited everyone to participate. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Diane Kerns, Valley Conservation Council Ms. DianeKerns, amember ofthe Valley Conservation Council (VCC), provided the Planning Commission with copies of the State of the Valley Report which was produced by the VCC. She said that several years ago the VCC produced Better Models for Development in the Shenandoah Valley which contained five established principles. She said the VCC compared facts and figures for the various counties throughout the Valley and compiled the information for their report. In addition, Ms. Kerns announced that the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) has scheduled the Virginia Citizens Planning Association on their program for Thursday, March 11, 2004. She • said thatthe CCC is hoping to workwith Frederick County Planning, Winchester City Planning, and some of the other areas, such as Clarke County, Stephens City, and Middletown in their quest to help the public understand more about the planning process and how to become involved. She said the program was free and open to the public. Mr. Steve White, Stonewall District Mr. Steve White, a resident of the Stonewall District, came forward to elicit support for the proposed aquatic center in Frederick County. Mr. White believed Frederick County needed the aquatic center, not only for the high school students, but for physical therapy, and as an infrastructure addition to attract tourism as well as a number of other industries that would view this as a positive influence for establishing their companies in this area. Mr. White hoped that when this subject came up for consideration, that the Planning Commission would show its support. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1247 -3- PUBLIC HEARING The 2004 -2005 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for-Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County agencies, to be reviewed for potential allocation in the ensuing five -year period. The plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the CIP. Action - Recommended Approval Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated that the CIP (Capital Improvements Plan) information presented this evening is consistent with what the Commission has previously seen at the subcommittee level and as the Draft CIP presented to the Commission in December of 2003. Director Lawrence stated that the Board of Supervisors has directed the staffto proceed with the public hearing process. Director Lawrence next summarized the new projects for the Commission. He added that some ofthe various department directors were present to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas asked for a brief summary on the significance of whether or not a project is funded;,in particular, on Page 5 of the spread sheet, the public safety center and the field house/ indoor pool do not have specified funding. Commissioner Thomas also inquired if the dollar figure, attached or not, affected the project's ability to be eligible for a proffer from a developer. Director Lawrence replied that none of the projects on the spread sheet have been funded; the figures are merely estimated costs. He explained that the public safety center is the number one priority in the County Administration section and the field house/ indoor pool, is the number one priority for the Department of Parks & Recreation. He further • explained that neither of those two projects had estimated costs associated with them and that is the reason why those figures were not included on the spread sheet. Director Lawrence said that the numbers presented are not certified, but are merely estimates provided by the various departments. He noted that as long as the projects are identified on the CIP, they will be eligible for receiving proffer contributions. Director Lawrence continued, stating that over the previous year, the County has taken a riiffPrrnt nercprrtive in its re view by strengthening the CIP and its link to the Corrmnrebensive Policy Plan. He said that as a result, in the upcoming year, the County will have a facilities map identifying all the capital improvements projects and this facilities map will be inserted into the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Director Lawrence added that this will strengthen the State Code requirements that all capital projects must be linked and identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Thomas said that he whole - heartedly supported the inclusion of an aquatic center for the County and believed it would represent a quality of life improvement for the residents of Frederick County. Other Commissioners agreed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 2004 -2005 Capital Improvement Plan for Frederick County, as submitted. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1248 r� U PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE SECTION 165 -65 AND SECTION 165 -156 PERTAINING TO PIPESTEM LOTS. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Mark R. Cheran reported that after extensive review, the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended a pipestem lot ordinance amendment at their meeting in August of 2003. Planner Cheran said that the ordinance incorporates several design standards for pipestem lots. He said that key design standards include 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 Cheran continued, stating that during the Planning Commission's discussion of this amendment on October 15, 2003, the majority of Commissioners supported the amendment. He said that Commissioners noted that they were not opposed to giving the design community some flexibility, because it can be an avenue for creative and constructive design; however, they did not want to see pipestem lots become standard procedure. He added that the Board of Supervisors directed the staff to schedule the proposed amendment for a public hearing at their meeting of November 12, 2003. Planner Cheran added that V DOT has recommended that pipestem lots have a minimum road frontage of 20', versus the 18' desi grated in the proposed ordinance, under § 165 -65 Dimensional Requirements, • P(2). Planner Cheran further added that VDOT's recommendation was received after the agenda had already been mailed. Chairman DeHaven asked legal counsel if re- advertisement was necessary, if the Planning Commission changed the minimum road frontage from 18' to 20'. Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, the Planning Commission's legal counsel, stated that re- advertisement was not necessary, in his opinion. to speak: Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following person came forward Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering came forward to address Item Number 5 under 165 -65 Dimensional Requirements, "A pipestem lot shall not adjoin other pipestem lots." He believed the intention was not to have two "stems" of pipestem lots together, although there could be occasions when the the lots would come together. Commissioner Thomas stated that the DRRS put a considerable amount of work into the proposed amendment. He agreed with Mr. Smith's assessment of the intent and was comfortable making the proposedchange. Chairman DeHaven suggested the wording, "Pipestem lot driveways shall not adjoin other pipestem lot driveways." Everyone agreed the amended wording clarified the intent. Legal Counsel believed re- advertisement was not necessary for this change in wording. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1249 -5- ® BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165 -65 Dimensional Requirements, P. Pipestem Lots, and Section 165 -156, Definitions and word usage, Lot, Pipestem, with the following changes: (2) Pipestem lots shall have a minimum road frontage of 20 (twenty) feet. (5) Pipestem lot driveways shall not adjoin other pipestem lot driveways. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 7:30 p.m. submitted, 'aav___ C 'I J S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Secretary �J Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 4, 2004 Page 1250