Loading...
PC_03-19-97_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on March 19, 1997. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice- Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Terry Stone, Gainesboro District George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. ® CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - FEBRUARY 5,1997 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romme, the Commission unanimously approved the February 5, 1997 minutes as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. i Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 35 -2- COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission Mr. Rornme reported that the EDC has a new person in place to handle existing industrial development. Mr. Rornme said that he is also a member of that committee. Sanitation Authority - 03/18/97 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the SA prioritized their Capital Improvements Plans and authorized Mr. Jones to apply for a VRA loan which would enable them to get several projects underway: the Berryville Water Transmission Main, the Northwest Water Storage Tank, the Rt. 50Nictory Lane Water Loop, and the Rt. 522/ 50 Water Transmission Main. She said that this will enable the County to be completely free of purchasing City water by the Year 2000. She said the County is now purchasing approximately 450,000 gpd from the City. Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that all plants are working fine and there are no problems. • Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) - 03/18/97 Mr. DiBenedetto, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, reported that the WPC recommended approval of a conditional use permit that will allow Glen Burnie to become a museum; and this will go to Council next month. Mr. DiBenedetto said that the WPC also initiated a text amendment to allow police substations m residential areas. He said the Council and the Police want to establish one at the North Kent Street School and unfortunately, City zoning does not allow it. He said that the WPC also initiated discussion on changing the higher education districts to something that will be referred to as "Educational- Institutional Public Use District' which will allow many uses. Mr. DiBenedetto said that work is continuing on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Re: The Home Plate, Inc.; A recreational facility (batting cages), zoned B2, located at the corner of Warrior Drive and Ivory Drive A number of residents of this area were present to show their concern about this establishment and the following two people spoke to the Commission: Mrs. Carmen Burnette, resident at 110 Peridot Place, Georgetown Court II, in Stephens City, is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 36 -3- said that many people in her neighborhood had concerns about the batting cages; specifically, those concerns involved the traffic, attracting outsiders into their neighborhood, and the light pollution. Mrs. Burnette said that last summer they experienced some breaking and entering problems in the area. She felt it was going to be difficult to sell their homes when the time came because of these problems. She said that the light pollution is generated by the batting cages, the park, and the high school. Mrs. Bunette said that the batting cages are located right in the middle of her residential neighborhood and she felt it was not the best location. Mr. Doug Greene, resident of the Village at Sherando, stated that he didn't pay $125,000 for his home to open the front door and look out to see a construction trailer, which is located at the batting cages. Mr. Greene said that he was told before he bought the property that a road was supposed to go through there. He felt it was strange that a piece of property could be rezoned to commercial, when the whole area was residential. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Greene when he bought his property and Mr. Greene replied that he purchased it in November of 1995. Chairman DeHaven explained to Mr. Greene that the property was rezoned for commercial before the surrounding developments existed. Mr. Tierney said that the property along both sides of Warrior Drive from Rt. 277 North to where the batting cages are located was all zoned to business back in 1992. He said that one of the important factors in this particular instance is that this property was zoned for business before the area was ever subdivided for residential development. He stated that when the lots were sold, the business zoning existed there. Mr. Tierney said that if the people that bought homes there were not told that, then their dispute should be with their realtor or their closing attorneys. • Mr. Ours stated that the master development plan for the Village at Sherando initially called for that front area to be commercial. He said that Dr. McAllister had planned from the beginning, before there was ever a footer poured for any house in that development, that a portion of the master plan be designated for commercial/business. Mr. Matthew Croke, the owner of The Home Plate, stated that last Sunday, he met with about 24 residents at the site and he expressed to them that he wanted to be a good neighbor and do the right thing. Mr. Croke said that he was sorry this was happening, however, the County did take a look at what was going there next to the residential neighborhood. He said that the County required what he thought was more parking than might be necessary, just to be sure there would be no overspill; and also required what he and his engineer thought was more landscaping than what was necessary, so the property would look good. Mr. Croke said that his family has invested everything they have into this business and they want to be as proud of it as the residents are of their homes. Chairman DeHaven suggested that the people present go to the Planning Department and take a look at the site plan for the property and the requirements of the zoning ordinance on buffering/screening and mitigation of impacts for adjoining properties. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 37 -4- i PUBLIC HEARINGS Amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -24, Height Limitations; Exceptions; Section 165 -48.6, Commercial Telecommunications Facilities; and Article XXI, Definitions, of the Frederick County Code. These proposed amendments will establish procedures and standards to allow for the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities within all zoning districts specified in this Chapter. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented the proposed amendment to the Commission. He explained that the amendment sets forth three definitions, standards for a conditional use permit (CUP) process for the siting of any facility and requests additional information as a part of the application, and it sets forth performance standards that would apply to any property in which a facility is sited. Mr. Wyatt next reviewed the amendments with the Commission. Members of the Commission asked if it would be appropriate to address the collocation as part of the CUP process and Mr. Wyatt replied that during the most recent subcommittee meeting, the group felt that the attempts to collocate should be encouraged, but not required. Members of the Commission inquired if service providers were attempting to access power of eminent domain for these structures. Mr. Wyatt replied that he was not aware of that. • Discussion next ensued regarding monopole versus lattice type towers. Commission members felt that the wording was somewhat vague as to whether or not the intent is to require monopoles everywhere and allow for an exception for lattice towers outside of the urban development area (UDA) and historic sites. It was noted that there was a good deal of discussion about this at committee. Some of the Commissioners felt the wording would be better stated requiring monopole construction, but that the Planning Commission may allow lattice construction under special conditions. Mr. Tierney suggested the following wording under 165 -48.6; B. 2) "Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice type construction for sites which are located outside the UDA provided that the sites are not adjacent to properties which are identified as historic sites." The Planning Commission felt this language was appropriate. Chairman DeHaven consulted with legal counsel, Jay Cook, to determine if the language change would require readvertising. Mr. Cook responded that the public hearing could continue with the change in language. The Commission next discussed procedures for removal of the facility within one year of the abandonment. It was noted that at the last meeting, there was discussion about a bond requirement. Mr. Wyatt said the subcommittee felt that if it was spelled out initially as to how it would be removed, whether it would be a requirement of the property owner through the lease agreement, or by the company itself through a bond issue, or however they determine best to do it, that would leave open many avenues to remove the tower, should it become abandoned. Mr. Miller added that it could be a standard condition of the CUP that tower removal be a part of the agreement between the service provider and the landowner. Mr. Miller said that he would be opposed is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 38 -5- to the bonding situation because there would be a significant addition to the cost that may never be required. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following individual came forward to speak: Mr. Michael Collins, an amateur radio operator and member of the Shenandoah Valley Amateur Radio Club, had concerns that the proposed amendment might affect two -way radio antennas or licensed amateur radio operators. Mr. Wyatt explained that structures utilized as satellite earth stations and structures utilized for amateur or recreational purposes such as ham radio or citizen band radio were specifically excluded from the requirements. He explained that the County is hoping to guide the placement of structures, not to restrict their access. The Planning Commission felt that the amendments presented, with the inclusion of the modification to Section B(2), addressed all of the concerns raised. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -24, Height Limitations; Exceptions; Section 165 -48.6, Commercial Telecommunications Facilities; and Article XXI, Definitions, with the modification as stated for Section 165 -48.6 B(2). • Implementation of a "No Through Truck Traffic" Policy for Tasker Drive (Relocated Route 642). Action - Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the staff' is concerned that when Tasker Drive opens in the Spring, providing direct access to Eastgate, it may create the potential for tractor - trailer truck traffic to utilize this route to get to Route 522, towards areas such as the Inland Port. Mr. Wyatt said that residential lot frontage exists along this road for several subdivisions in the area; and, in addition, a portion of Tasker Drive, being the old Rt. 642, was constructed to a lesser standard and may not hold up to truck traffic. Mr. Wyatt said that there has been a significant expenditure by the State to upgrade Rt. 522 South to a four -lane condition to accommodate truck traffic. Mr. Wyatt said that at the meeting of March 4, 1997, the Transportation Committee agreed with the concept of "no through truck traffic;" however, the two concerns were: 1) what types of truck traffic would be prohibited; and 2) what type of enforcement would be used? • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 39 M • Commission members felt that the problem was going to be how to distinguish between local, destination truck traffic and truck traffic en route to the Inland Port. They felt that the residents in the area will be thinking that the regulation is a ban for all truck traffic. Mr. Tierney pointed out that the regulation is for "no through truck traffic," therefore, any legitimate "destination" traffic along Tasker Drive is okay. Mr. Tierney said that we cannot prevent any industry that might locate along Tasker Drive from getting truck deliveries and that's not what we're trying to do. He said that ultimately, this will be a deterrent, but it won't solve the problem completely. Mr. DiBenedetto wanted to explain to the Commission how the enforcement issue would probably be handled, since he works in law enforcement and knew how the system worked. Mr. DiBenedetto said that law enforcement departments receive complaints all the time about speeding through school zones or neighborhoods or the Sheriff will get a letter from a Board member who has received phone calls from people. He said that the departments will do something called "selective enforcement." He explained that specific times are targeted and a deputy or two is placed in a specific area and the law is enforced a little bit. Mr. DiBenedetto said that this has a positive impact. He said that the "no through truck traffic" signs will stop some people, then the Sheriff will selectively enforce that law at particular times and the word gets out that it may.cost money to go down through there. He said that having the sign and doing some selective enforcement through the Sheriff's office probably will make a difference. The Sheriffs office will keep a record of the complaints. The Planning Commissioners felt that the proposed policy would eliminate some through -truck traffic and for them, that was the intent of the policy and made it worthwhile to pursue it. They realized there would probably be a misconception among some people that this was going to do more than be a deterrent. • Mr. Sager pointed out that the Route 642/647 intersection was a serious problem. Mr. Sager said that numerous accidents continue to occur here. He said that no one knows when a traffic light will be installed here and the residents are very much concerned about the situation. Mr. Sager said that the second concern was the deterioration of the roadway itself, between 37 and 647; and the third concern expressed to him was the ability to get out on the Rt. 522 side. Chairman DeHaven asked if there was any public comment and someone in the audience asked if the speed limit was going to be 35 mph on Tasker Drive. Commission members replied that it is still 45 mph and steps would need to be taken to lower the limit. Another member of the public asked if the potential was there for Eastgate to become a large industrial park. Commission members replied that the potential was there, but it was hard to generalize at this point in time. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the "No Through Truck Traffic" Policy for Tasker Drive as presented by the staff and recommends unanimous approval to the Board of Supervisors. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 40 -7- i Joint Stephens City/ Frederick County Planning Committee Mr. Tierney presented a memorandum to the Commission that summarized the initial meeting that both Mr. Sager and he attended with representatives of Stephens City on the joint planning effort. Mr. Tierney said that the intention is to meet monthly to study and work out some issues. Cancellation of the Commission's April 2, 1997 Meeting Mr. Tierney stated that the staff has no agenda items for the Commission's April 2 meeting and the recommendation is to cancel that meeting. There being no objections, Chairman DeHaven canceled the fast meeting in April. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Kh"s C. Tic ec Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman (Jr.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 1997 Page 41