Loading...
PC_05-15-96_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, Virginia on May 15, 1996. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice - Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Interim Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1996 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the minutes of the April 3, 1996 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Commission members had concerns about the granting of a variance for Holiday Inn Express for a 76" sign setback and a 89.5 square foot sign size for an existing sign. Staff answered questions from the Commission and Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's 4198 FA information. An Amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -37, Butler and Screening Requirements. This amendment will establish standards for common shared buffer and screening easements between adjoining properties within various zoning districts. Action - Approved Mr. Wyatt said that it had been suggested to the staff that the current buffer and screening requirements were excessive, in that they required too much land to be set aside and concerns had been expressed that land was too valuable to be reserved strictly for the purpose of providing buffer distance. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff agrees with this argument to a point, however, the staff believes that distances can be reduced provided that the required buffer and screening methods are designed and constructed to provide for maximum protection. Mr. Wyatt said that one method to promote flexibility is to allow adjoining property owners to design and develop a common shared buffer and screening easement between properties. He said that the staff believed that this approach had several benefits including that the amount of land required for the buffer may be reduced, the initial cost and maintenance costs are reduced, and the adjoining property owners are aware of the development potential of each property. Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) felt that this amendment provided a benefit to the development community which would allow adjoining property owners to work together to design appropriate buffers and they endorsed the proposal at their April meeting. There were no citizen comments. Members of the Commission were in favor of the proposed amendment and upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, as follows: 165 -37D Zoning District Buffers (8) Proposed developments required to provide buffers and screening as determined by Section 165- 371)(1)(b) of this Chapter may be permitted to establish a common 4199 shared buffer and screening easement with the adjoining property. The common shared buffer and screening easement shall include all components of a full screen which shall be clearly indicated on a site design plan. A legal agreement signed by all appropriate property owners shall be maintained with the approved site design plan. This agreement shall describe the location of the required buffer within each property, the number and type of the plantings to be provided, and a statement regarding the maintenance responsibility for this easement. The required buffer distance may be reduced by 50 for a common shared buffer easement if existing vegetation achieves the functions of a full screen. DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE PLAN FOR ROUND HILL Action - Unanimously Endorsed Revisions Mr. Tierney said that during the Board of Supervisors' review of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan in January of 1996, the Board expressed concern about various aspects of the section dealing with the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Mr. Tierney said that the Board was not in favor of using public money to extend central sewer. He explained that another concern of the Board was the large area designated for residential development and the costs that go along with it. Mr. Tierney said that the staff believed the latest modifications to the plan have addressed the Board's concerns and make it clear that this is a long -range plan. He stated that the issues of permitting an extension of central sewer and the potential growth that may result have been dealt with in a way in which the fiscal interests of the County are protected. Mr. Tierney said the timing of any extension, beyond areas already eligible for sewer, is clearly in the hands of the Board. He added that it was also made clear that any future extension would have to be funded through private investment and would be contingent on a number of other factors. Members of the Commission empathized with the citizens of the Round Hill area who had been identified as having sewer problems and failing septic systems and questioned what alternatives were left for them. The question also arose as to whether the Urban Development Area (UDA) would need to be expanded to accommodate the development of Phases II and III. Staff noted that the UDA allows for residential development and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) allows for commercial and industrial development without being in the UDA. Members of the Commission who were on the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) felt that other important issues were addressed in the overall community plan, such as land use and appearance, and even though the reality of the situation is that sewer was a long 4200 way off, it didn't diminish the importance of the remainder of the plan. A motion was made by Mr. Light, seconded by Mr. Romine, and unanimously passed to send the Round Hill Plan revisions to the Board with the Commission's endorsement. DISCUSSION ON THE EXPANSION OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA Mr. Tierney stated that the staff received a request to consider including a 9.81 acre parcel in the Urban Development Area (UDA). He said that the parcel is located on the western side of the City of Winchester, along the City and County corporate boundary, and north of Middle Road. He explained that the request would enable the developer of the Westridge subdivision, located in the City, to continue the current subdivision onto the 9.81 acre parcel in the County, which is outside of the UDA. Mr. Tierney said that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) discussed the issue, but had concerns because it may establish a trend that would encourage existing subdivisions located in the City to continue developing into the County. Members of the Commission asked if the 9.81 acre parcel would be accessed from the City or the County and it was determined that the only access to the parcel was through the City of Winchester. Commission members had jurisdictional concerns about who and how the property would be served by emergency services and school buses. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, was available to represent the applicant and explained the proposed development in further detail for the Commission. Members of the Commission were concerned about the precedent setting situation this could create; however, they felt there were a couple aspects about this particular development that made it unique, so its expansion into the County could be defended: 1) the property was split by the City /County boundary line; and 2) the portion of property within the City had already been developed. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, the Commission unanimously voted to allow the expansion of the UDA to include the 9.81 acre parcel, designated as P.I.N. 63 -A -3. The staff noted that this proposal would need to come back before the Commission with an application for rezoning and then a master development plan. Mr. Light requested that specific information be presented during the rezoning application about which jurisdiction would serve the property with emergency services and school buses and how the property would be accessed. 4201 5 DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Wyatt said that the staff will be providing the Planning Commission with detailed reports of the committee meetings held each month. Mr. Wyatt said that the reports will be designed to identify the issues coming before the Committee, to provide information based on committee discussion, and to recommend various actions that may be desirable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wyatt explained that there are occasions when the Committee is not interested in endorsing an amendment that is brought before them and he asked the Commission if the applicant should be told that there is no reason to pursue the amendment further or if the Commission would prefer to hear the request anyway. Commissioners felt that every citizen deserved the opportunity to bring a request before the Planning Commission for discussion. They felt that even though the Committee heard the request and was not in favor of pursuing it, the citizen should have the prerogative to bring it before the Commission as an agenda item. As a point of clarification, the Commission said that they would prefer to continue to have informal discussions on Code amendments. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman u � 1 I-K C. ✓ km , Inierim PI � g Director 4202