Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_12-18-02_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 18, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. Del- laver, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; RobertA. Morris, Shawnee District; PatGochenour, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesbore District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District, Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District: Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director, Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II, Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 12/17/02 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour repotted that the HRAB discussed the following: the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation's presentation entitled, `Battlefield Clusters," given by John Hutchinson, Program Manager for Resource Protection; two rezoning proposals, the North Stephenson, Inc. and the Shenandoah Valley Lime Corporation by Greenway Engineering. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB has decided to meet on a more frequent basis in 2003. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2002 Page 984 -2- • PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application #08 -02 of Bowman /Shoemaker (tabled at the 9/4/02 and 11/20/02 meetings), submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 10.09 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located south on Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 800 feet cast of the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road (Rt. 641), and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -A -81 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the Planning Commission tabled this rezoning proposal at thei r meetings of September 4, 2002 and November 20, 2002 due to trap sportation concerns re fated to Phase 11 ofthe development Planner Camp explained that since the November 20, 2002 meeting, the applicant has revised Proffer B7 in an attemptto address the concerns of the Planning Commission. said the revisions include: 1) the limitation of Phase 11 to no more than 250 vehicle trips per day until Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) is improved; and, 2) the limitation of development of Phase 11, unless a detailed traffic study can be submitted for each site plan which proves that an acceptable level of service can be maintained on Fairfax Pike. Planner Camp said the Virginia Departmentof Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed the rev isediproffer statement and concluded that it does satisfy their transportation concerns; the County Attorney has also reviewed the revised proffer statement and had no additional comments. Planner Camp said that the Planning Staff continues to express concern regardingthe rezoning application, due to the fact that the subject property is not located with the Urban Development Area (UDA) is or the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the owner, Beverly B. Shoemaker, stated that if this rezoning is approved, several triggers have been established for the Phase II development: l ) the Board of Supervisors must includethe property within the SWSA beforeany development occurs; 2) after the property is incorporated in the SWSA, additional vehicle trips generated will be limited to 250; and, 3) a traffic study verifying that the Level of Service (LOS) on Rt. 277 is adequate to accommodate the first 250 trips or no development will occur in Phase II until the Rt. 277 improvements are in place. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Rosenberry asked for specifics on what was meant by "improvemeotsto Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)." Mr. Wyatt stated that a few years ago, VDOT provided funding for preliminary engineering design work to be done on the Rt. 277 corridor, from 1 -81 to just east of Rt. 636. The purpose of the exercise was to allow for adequate right -of -way, as properties developed, and not to place buildings or parking lots too close. He said the reference in the proffer is the actual engineering document that VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved for that section of Rt. 277. Basically, on this portion, it will be two travel lanes in each direction. Commissioner GochenOUr had questions for the applicant on how the Phase II development would be limited. • Frederick County planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2002 Page 985 Coin missionerMorriscomntentedthatbusinessesoutsideoftheSWSA havehistoricallybeen granted approval by the Commission and Board to be connected to sewer. He asked the staff if they saw any conflict with the applicanCs phasing plan which stated that the property would be included in the UDA and the SWSA before any further development and the fact that sewer could be extended into the area through precedent without inclusion in the SWSA. Director Lawrence replied that the Board of Supervisors will ultimately make the decision as to whetheror not this property proceeds with Phase II because the Board must approve all SWSA expansion requests, as well as an extension of sewer service. The Commissioners believed the revised proffers submitted by the applicant had addressed the traffic concerns that were raised. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #08 -02 of Bowman /Shoemaker, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 10.09 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District with the revised proffers as submitted by the applicant. PUBLIC MEETING A request of Michael F. Ferraro and Linda D. Ferraro for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144- 31C(3), which would enable theist to subdivide their property without the necessary 50-foot right-of-waywidth fora privateshared driveway. Thiswaiver, if approved, would apply to this specific subdivision request. Any future subdivision requests for this property wou Id be required to meet the req ui remen is of Section 144-31C(3). (This request was returned to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors for further consideration.) Action - Recommended Denial Commissioner Watt stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this request due to a possible conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mr. Patrick T. Davenport, stated that the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of this waiver request at their public meeting of October 16, 2002. He said that subsequently, at the November I1 2002 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board voted to send die Ferraro's waiver request back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration, due to the fact that the applicant's attorney had included proposed restrictive covenants in the Board's agenda that would be placed upon the two new parcels, if allowed to be subdivided. He said that these proposed covenants were not included in the November 13, 2002 agenda package for the Commission. Administrator Davenport stated that the covenants would restrict each parcel to use a separate right-of -way and would also restrict each parcel to constructing one single- family dwelling. Administrator Davenport added that Frederick County does not enforce private restrictive covenants. Mr. Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., representing the applicants Michael F. and Linda D. Ferraro, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2002 Page 986 -4- slated that the Ferraros would like to subdivide their 109 -acre parcel into two lots, one of approximately 35.51 acres and one ofapproaintately 73.47 acres, which would constitute a minor rural subdivision. Mr. Mitchel l stated that the Ferraros are requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144 -31 C(3), which requires a minimum width for a private shared driveway to be 50 foot in width. He explained that tile Ferraros are prepared to terminate the right of Tract 1 (73.47 ac.) to use the northern right -of -way and they will terminate the right of'I'ract 2 (35.51 ac.) to use the southern right -of -way; he noted that the result would be for each right -of -way to serve only one lot. Mr. Mitchell said the Ferraros are also prepared to place a permanent restrictive covenant on their property stating that as long as Tract I is utilizing the southern right -of- way for access, there will never be more than one single - family residence on Tract I. He said the same covenant would be applied to Tract 2, that as long as Tract 2 is utilizing the northern right -of -way for acres, there will never be more than one single- family residence on Tract 2. Mr. Mitchell said they have actually prepared the Deed of Subdivision and Declaration of Restrictions which would be placed in the land records and would be permanent restrictions ofthe property. Commission members discussed with Mr. Mitchell the enforcement process. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that if there is any attempted.violation of the restrictive covenants in the future, any one of the property owners along the right -of -way would have the right to seek an injunction to enforce the restrictive covenants. Commission members pointed out that this process would involve costs to the property owners seeking the injunction. A question from the Commission was also raised as to who is responsible for maintaining right -of -ways. Mr. Mitchell said that intheabsenceofa written maintenanceagreement ,thegeneralsituation is that those who use the right -of -way have maintenance responsibility. Mr. Mitchell added that to his knowledge, neither of the two right -of -ways have a written maintenance agreement that applies to all the properties over which the right -oGway traverses. Chairman DeHaven nextcalled for publ is comments and the following- persons came forward to speak: Ms. Mary Catherine Lynch, an attorney representing Mr. Allen Lafollette, stated that in her research of the land records she observed that the Ferraros have a recorded right -of -way on their deed for the northern right -of -way, but she cannot find a recorded right -of -way for the southern road. Ms. Lynch stated that there is a question in her and her client's minds regarding the status of that southern right -of -way. Ms. Lynch added that they also have concerns about who w i l l be enforcing the Ferraro's proposed deed restrictions. She agreed that everyone has the avenue of going to court to enforce an issue: but noted that it seemed a burdensome task for someone to have to do when they have not created the situation to begin with. She further added that to make these roads easily passable, it may require taking down timber, and she questioned whether this was something one person has the right to do on another person's property. Mr. John Watt, Jr. asked if this was a precedent- setting request and he also questioned what would happen during the Winter and Spring months when the road becomes impassable. Mr. Joe Marple, an adjoining property owner to the north, agreed with the other concerns raised by personswho spoke. Mr. Marplewasconcernedwiththefactthattileburdenforenforcementwould be placed on the adjoining landowners: he said that he had already spent enough money in legal fees on this matter and did not want to have to spend more in the future. Mr. Marple added that the right -of -ways are narrow and difficult to traverse in the Winter. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 18. 2002 Page 987 -5- Mr. Patrick Huntley, owner of propertyjust north ofthe Ferraro's property, said that he was opposed to grantingofthewaiverrequested. Mc Huntley said that lie did not wishtoineurany additional costs based upon Mr. Ferraro's request to subdivide his property. Mr. Huntley believed that granting this waiver request would set a precedent to further subdivide the property in the future. Mr. Mitchell returned to the podium and addressed someofthe concerns raised by the citizens who spoke. Commission members did not believe it was reasonable to expect the surrounding property owners to have to go to court to enforce ordinances that they didn't have when they bought their properties. They did not believe it was reasonable to expect the neighbors to hire lawyers and go to court to enforce deed restrictions. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLV ED,'fhat the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of a request of Michael F. Ferraro and Linda D. Ferraro for a waiver to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144 -31 C(3), which would enable them to subdivide their property Without the necessary 50 -foot right -of -way width for a private shared driveway. (Note: Commissioner Watt abstained from voting.) • DISCUSSION ON THE 2003 -2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN No Action Required at This Time Deputy Planning Director Christopher M. Mohn reported that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) has been actively engaged in the development ofthe draft 2003 -2004 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) since its October meeting. Deputy Director Mohn said the CPPS's process culminated at its December 9, 2002 meeting during which the CPPS finalized the project prioritization table and unanimously endorsed the CIP. Deputy Director Mohn summari the fol lowing points regarding the draft 2003-2004 CIP: 1) the proposed CIP consists of 30 capital projects, which is an increase over the 28 projects included in the previous CIP; 2) all ofthe projects included with the previous CIP will be carried overto the proposed 2003- 2004 CIP with the exception of Millbrook Fligh School; funding for the County's third high school has been completed and construction is wel I underway: and 3) the proposed CI P inc I udcs three new capital projects: land acquisition along Buffl ick Road tofacil itate the regional airport's noise attenuation program, developmentof a lake, trails, and parking with two irrigated multi - purpose fields at Sherando Park, and the development of an access road with parking and trails at Sherando Park. Deputy Director Mohn noted that the public schools and the Departmentof Parks & Recreation had expressed concern thatthc evaluation process resulted in some of their higher priority projects dropping below some of their lower priority projects in the proposed CIP. Deputy Director Mohn added that department directors of' the various departments were Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December I8, 2002 Page 988 -6- present to answer any questions from the Commission. A question from the Commission was raised regarding whether or notthe draft CIP had been reviewed by the County's budget commni ittee, based on the Conuniss i on's d i scu ss ions last year on dollar figures in the CIP. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the draft CIP had been forwarded to the Finance Director for review and coin ment. Anotherquestion raised concerned the breakdown for some ofthe items listed in tile CIP and whetherfuture proffers were going to reflect these specific proJects. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence replied that the figures for the Capital Facilities Impact Model are derived from the CIP. He said the County receives the cash proffer and then the Finance Department will dispurse the funds accordingly. Chairman Del -laven called for public comments, however. no one came forward to speak. No other issues were raised by the Commission. Commissioners believed the CIP was appropriate and ready for a public hearing. DISCUSSION ON THE WOODLANDS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS No Action Required at This Time Planner Jeremy F. Camp came forward to present and discuss the proposed amendments for "Project Woodlands." Planner Camp reported that the Board of Supervisorsdirected the Development Review and RegulationsSubcommittee( DRRS) to revise the current wood lands ord inance earlier th is year and several proposed amendments to the ordinance have been developed by the DRRS over the past several months as an alternative to the current woodland regulations. Planner Camp explained that the primary goals of the amendments are: I) to eliminate the need for future woodland disturbance waivers without jeopardizing environmental preservation; 2) to improve the landscaping standards of Frederick County; and 3) to create a concise ordinance that encourages creative development practices. Planner Camp proceeded with a computerized presentation for the Planning Commission. Coin inissioner Thomas. Chairman of the DRRS, commented that the DRRS examined the enti rc environmental protection features section contained in the ordinance and essentially reworked the entire ordinance concerning topographic features and other features for protection of sensitive areas. Fie said the proposed amendments are much more extensive than simply a "woodlands ordinance" revision. Commissioner Gochenour raised the issue of citizen participation in the development of the proposed ordinance amendments. Planner Camp explained that the DRRS is composed of diversified individuals throughout the community, including both average citizens as well as those with considerable expertise. Planner Camp stated that in developing the actual language for the proposed amendments, it is helpful to receive input from experts in a particular field; he said that after the language has been developed, the County will proceed With numerous public hearings for the community's input. Commissioner Rosenberry believed the proposed amendments seta new higher standard for landscaping for subdivisions within the community; however, he was concerned that the idea of "woodlands preservation" was being eliminated with the proposed revisions. Commissioner Thomas explained that the DRRS focused on developing revisions that would discourage developers from clear- cutting entire areas of 41 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2002 Page 989 7- woodlands. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that the DRRS's goal was to preserve woodlands as much as possible through incentives, and also to encourage developers to plant trees in areas where there are none. Commissioner Ours stated that the County's current ordinance doesn't clearly define woodlands. He said that on numerous past occasions, the Commission considered properties where it was said that woodlands existed; but, in actuality, what existed were overly- mature wooded areas or scrub brush. Commissioner Ours stated that with this new concept, old or scrub brush areas will be removed and new trees and landscaped areas will be planted which, in the long run, are much more aesthetically pleasing than what currently exists. He believed that by establishing definitions, a much better ordinance will be promoted. Commissioner Gochenour raised the question as to who would make the decision regarding whether or not a tree area should be preserved. Commissioner Thomas replied that basically, the decision is made by the property owner. He said the problem now is that the current ordinance encourages developers to cut down trees and what the DRRS has attempted to do is improve or eliminate the section of tile ordinance that encourages developers to clear-cut sites. He said DRRS has sought to encourage developers, by a profit - based motive, to either develop new woodlands, or new treed areas, or to preserve existing treed areas. He stressed that this is the whole intent behind the proposed amendments. CommissionerThomas corn in that iftlie proposed amendments are adopted this year by I the Board of Supervisors, the DRRS expects to be working on the ordinance over the next year by making modifications and improvements. Chairman DeHaven commended the DRRS forthe creative and innovative work; he believed the proposal was headed in the right direction. He commented that it was fairly complex, however, it offered incentives for preservation of existi ng treed areas while ensuring a percentage of vegetative cover on areas over • the long term. Other members of the Commission agreed. Chairman DeHaven raised the issue of administration, implementation, and oversight for long -term on the proposals. No action was taken by the Commission at this time. OTHER VIRGINIA CITIZENS PLANNING ASSOCIATION Plannins Director Eric R. Lawrence announced that according to the Virginia Citizens Planning Association Newsletter, Commissioner Morris has been chosen as the new president of that association as of October, 2002. CITIZEN COMMENT • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2002 Page 990 -8- Mr. Alex McDowell, a resident of Back Creek District, stated that he has been in the Winchester! Gore area for 50 years now and he is disturbed by what is happening in this area. Mr.McDowell said he used to live in Annapolis, Maryland, and it used to be a beautiful place with the trees and the countryside; however, it is a disaster now. lie commented that he observed the County Counsel go through just what the Commission is going through. He said that eventually, the State Department of Natural Resources iinposed restrict ionson Anne Arundel Con ntyand now, homeowners must have permission before cutting trees on their property. Mr. McDowell hoped it would not come to that in Frederick County. PLANNING COMMISSION'S FIRST MEETING OF 2003 • Chairman Del -laven reminded the Commission thatthe first meeting in on the 15 ° i due to the New Years Day holiday on January I, 2003. Chairman Del laved joyous Holiday Season and New Year. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting unanimous vote. submitted, anuary 2003 will be wished everyone a at 9:00 p.m. by a Secretary • Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.. Chairman Frederick Count\ Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 2002 Page 991