PC_04-19-95_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia
on April 19, 1995.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Chairman /Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman /Back Creek
District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back
Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee
District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon
District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board
Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
ABSENT: Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District
Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan
A. Wyatt, Planner II; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner 1; and Kris C. Tierney,
Deputy Director.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
information.
3986
2
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 4/13/95 Mtg.
District.
Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed the Interstate Area Overlay
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPC will hold a community meeting for
the Round Hill residents on May 8, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Round Hill Fire Hall. Mrs.
Copenhaver said that the purpose of the meeting will be to solicit input from community
residents and land owners concerning the future of Round Hill. She said that a notice and
comment sheet was mailed to 311 land owners within the bounds of the Round Hill
Community Center.
Historic Resources Advisory Board - 4/18/95
Mr. Lawrence said that the HRAB finalized their recommendations for
guidelines for new construction in Historic Overlay Zones and those will be presented to
the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. He also noted that the first presentation of
historic plaques will be made at the next Board of Supervisors meeting on April 26, 1995.
Winchester Planning Commission - 4/18/95
Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the City Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning of 42 acres behind the Winchester Medical Center for Shenandoah
University.
3987
3
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Rezoning Application #008 -94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81 acres from RP (Residential
Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of
Custer Avenue and Pembridge Drive and is identified with PINS 64A -420A, 64A- 4-10A,
and 64A -10-B in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled for Six Months
Chairman DeHaven said that he would abstain from discussion and voting on
this rezoning because of a possible conflict of interest. Vice - Chairman Marker officiated
this part of the meeting.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the
consulting engineers, was present to represent this project. Mr. Maddox said that the
owner has requested that the Commission table this rezoning for six months in order for
necessary work to be done to establish acceptable proffers and to determine the feasibility
of their approach to solving the problems identified with this site. Mr. Maddox said that
as a minimum, the work will involve meetings with VDOT, significant field survey activities
including plat preparation, negotiations with funding sources both public and private,
negotiations with numerous utility companies who have lines in the area, and discussions
with adjacent landowners. He then described the primary concerns of the Pembridge
Heights homeowners and the direction the applicant planned to take in the way of proffers
to address those problems. Mr. Maddox added that since this process will require a
substantial financial investment, he requested that the Planning Commission agree to
provide a positive recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the rezoning, in light of
the proffers they were pursuing.
Vice Chairman Marker called for public comment and the following persons
came forward to speak in favor of the rezoning:
Mr. Ralph Gremlin, resident on Pembridge Drive, said that the options are
apartments or commercial use. Mr. Gremlin said that apartments will present a lot of
problems, such as traffic at all hours and noise. He said that if a business is established,
there will be a nice entrance, the development will be more accessible, and the development
will be more competitive with the subdivisions east on Route 50. Mr. Gremlin said that as
long as the applicant's promises are carried out, he would be in favor of the commercial
zoning.
Mrs. Susan Dunn, resident on Keswick Court, said that her home was one
of the first residences built in Pembridge Heights. Mrs. Dunn said that at the time, she
was told that access to the development behind her would be through Ludlow Drive. She
was concerned that if this request was not approved and a new entrance was not put in,
3988
4
that Ludlow would become a primary access road. She felt that the proposed new entrance
road would help to alleviate extra traffic on Pembridge and Ludlow Drives.
Mr. John Smoot, Board Member for Pembridge Heights Homeowners
Association, said that he was neither in favor or against the rezoning. Mr. Smoot
requested that Mr. Maddox be given ample time to see if the project as proposed will be
feasible.
Ms. Angela Bennett, resident of Pembridge Heights for the last four years,
said that if the applicant constructs the new entrance road as proposed, she would be in
favor of commercial development, with buffers. Ms. Bennett was concerned about the
traffic and felt the commercial development with a new road would be better than
apartments without road improvements.
The following persons came forward to speak in opposition:
Mr. Scott Snyder, 106 Clarendon Court, was opposed to commercialization
of Mr. Carroll's property. Mr. Snyder commented that the "long range plan" should serve
the people, not the people serve the plan. He said that there seemed to be a great interest
from the Commission in getting the road approved and paid for, but his feeling was that
if the land behind Pembridge was developed, there was no way it could be sustained by one
entrance on Route 50. Mr. Snyder said that he keeps hearing that the residents should do
this for the greater good because it will make things easier in the future, however, he felt
that was easy to say if you're not the one that was making the sacrifice. He said that at
the lower end of Etnam Street, there were already four or five houses on the market and
he suspected that these people have already reached the conclusion that this was going to
be rezoned. Mr. Snyder felt that these people were going to lose money selling their homes.
Mr. James Gibbons, resident on Stanley Circle in Miller Heights, presented
a petition of opposition from the residents in Miller Heights. Mr. Gibbons said that
approximately 80% of the residents signed the petition and the remainder could not be
contacted. Mr. Gibbons read a prepared statement which addressed the following: 1)
opposition to the rive -lane road traversing the residential area; 2) no written evidence of
an agreement to such road by the adjoining property owners; 3) no commitment by VDOT
for a traffic signal; 4) no agreement from VDOT on necessary land exchanges; and 5) the
reference made by Mr. Maddox stating there were other properties fronting along Route
50 that were already zoned commercial, however, no property east of Purdue Drive on the
north side of Route 50 was zoned for commercial development. Mr. Gibbons next read
portions of the Comprehensive Plan that he felt supported his belief that this property
should not be rezoned to commercial.
Mr. James Davern, resident at 105 Clarendon Court, asked for some
clarification on what was planned for Ludlow Drive. Mr. Maddox explained that there is
an interparcel connector to the north out of Pembridge Heights that goes into the Miller
3989
5
Farm. Mr. Maddox said that the adjacent parcel is zoned RP and Ludlow was obviously
planned as a roadway into this area. He said that the fear of the residents in that section
of Pembridge Heights is that Ludlow Drive will be extended, thereby creating a "through
condition" in the Pembridge Heights subdivision. Mr. Davern added that he had the names
of 15 other property owners who were also opposed to rezoning this property from
residential to commercial. Mr. Davern felt the Commission should vote on the proposal
as it stands rather than tabling for another six months.
Ms. Ruth Ann Snyder, resident at 106 Clarendon Court, questioned who
would benefit from rezoning this parcel of land and what constituted the "greater good" of
the community.
Mr. Robert Rosenbaugh, resident on Stanley Circle, said that Mr. Carroll
stated that if the residents were opposed then he would not pursue rezoning. Mr.
Rosenbaugh said that Mr. Carroll tried to rezone this property approximately four years
ago and the area residents were opposed then. Mr. Rosenbaugh said that people are
opposed to rezoning now and he felt the property should remain residential.
Ms. Penny Ravis, resident of Pembridge Heights, said that she could not
justify a five -lane road going through a residential area. Ms. Ravis was concerned about
the negative affect on the value of her property. She wondered what would keep businesses
from being established along the proposed five -lane road to Senseny Road.
Mr. Carson Schwartz, resident of Miller Heights, felt that the Commission
should not table the rezoning for another six months. Mr. Carson said that Mr. Carroll
stated he would not pursue the rezoning if the residents were in opposition.
The staff noted that the road layout and proposal under discussion had not
yet been made a part of the formal application.
Vice Chairman Marker took an informal poll of Commissioners to get their
feelings on rezoning this property if, in six months time, proffers were submitted as
discussed by Mr. Maddox. Most of the Commissioners felt that they could not guarantee
they would vote in favor of the rezoning until they could see what the applicant came back
with in specific proffers. They felt that voting in advance of seeing the actual proffers
would set a precedent for future applicants and there was also the possibility that some of
the current members may not be on the Commission six months from now. A number of
Commissioners felt that some of the B2 uses would not be appropriate for this area and
would need to be proffered out. Most of the Commissioners had positive feelings about
rezoning if a safe and attractive entrance road off of Route 50 could be accomplished to
accommodate traffic that will ultimately come. They felt this entrance road could also be
used as a possible connection to Senseny Road, which is badly needed.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
3990
R
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously agree to table Rezoning Application #008 -94 of James Carroll to rezone 2.81
acres, located at the intersection of Custer Avenue and Pembridge Road, from RP
(Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) for six months at the applicant's
request. (Mr. DeHaven abstained from voting.)
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously agree to make the Miller Heights petition, presented by Mr. James Gibbons,
and the letters from 15 Pembridge Heights property owners, submitted by Mr. James
Davern, a part of the official record. (Mr. DeHaven abstained from voting.)
INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE REGENCY LAKES
ESTATES MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. Wyatt stated that Frederick County approved a master development plan
(MDP) for Regency Lakes Estates on July 8, 1986. He said that this plan called for the
development of 598 mobile homes on 151 acres and 72 single - family detached dwelling units
on 52 acres. Mr. Wyatt noted that the single family section is at build -out. Mr. Wyatt
said that the Technical Review Committee met with representatives of G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc. to consider a proposed site plan for the fourth phase of development in
Regency Lakes Estates. He said that the proposed site plan indicated that the Regency
Lakes Drive loop road would be realigned around the lake to shorten its length, the 60'
right -of -way would be removed, two new collector roadways would be provided to the
Caleb Heights property, and that revisions to the buffer areas would occur. Mr. Wyatt
explained that site plans may only be approved if they are in conformance with the
approved MDP and because of the revisions to this project, the staff had determined that
a revised MDP would need to be approved as an initial step in this process.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the
consulting engineers, explained the proposed revisions to the Commission. He said that the
development changed owners in the mid 1990s and is now owned by Oakwood Homes. He
said that the mobile home section has not sold nearly as well as the single - family sections.
Mr. Maddox noted that they are also finding that the larger lots were more popular and
they have been increasing the lot sizes with each section, thereby requiring them to have
more space. Because of the approaching building season, Mr. Maddox requested that the
Commission act on the revised MDP as soon as possible.
3991
The Commission felt that the modifications were relatively straight forward
and directed the staff to present the revised MDP at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC OVERLAY ZONES
Mr. Lawrence presented the draft Guidelines for New Commercial
Construction in the Historic Area Overlay Zone as recommended by the Historic Resources
Advisory Board (ARAB) at their meeting of March 21, 1995. Mr. Lawrence said the
language used is designed to assist the new commercial construction designer in
understanding the goals for historic areas and the terminology exercised merely
recommends and encourages compliance with the design criteria. Mr. Lawrence stated that
the purpose of the guidelines is to insure that new commercial construction is compatible
with the historic area and to establish a common commercial identity among buildings. He
added that a statement has been included in the guidelines which enables the HRAB to use
its discretion in determining whether the development proposal meets the spirit of the
design criteria.
Mr. Lawrence summarized the guidelines for the Commission.
Mr. Watkins said that one particular event that spurred the establishment of
these guidelines had to do with the historic Star Fort and the applicant's proposal for
additional business rezoning at this site. He said that during discussions with the HRAB
and the applicant, it was determined that they would volunteer to be within a Historic
District, however, the County did not have any standards for commercial development
within those districts.
The Commission felt this was a reasonable beginning and the guidelines could
be very beneficial. Chairman DeHaven instructed the staff to advertise the guidelines for
the Commission's next available public hearing.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING INTERSTATE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Mr. Wyatt provided a brief history of discussions held by the staff and the
DRRS in writing the proposed regulations for the Interstate Area Overlay District. He said
that the Zoning Ordinance currently allows for a maximum of 35' tall signs in the
commercial districts which has spurred a lot of requests for the BZA to grant variances for
3992
E
taller signs with greater square footage. Mr. Wyatt said that the result of this,
unfortunately, because of the lack of specific guidelines, are inconsistencies in how these
requests are being granted.
Mr. Wyatt said that during the discussion process, specific uses were
identified around the interchange areas that were believed to warrant taller signs in order
to attract travel dollars off the interstate. He said that the proposed Overlay District allows
for taller commercial business signs with a greater square footage within the proximity of
the eight interstate interchange areas. He said that in order to insure that negative impacts
were held to a minimum, a proposed ordinance was drafted that addressed specific needs
of the commercial uses, while protecting other properties whose primary use was
residential. Mr. Wyatt said that the many different conditions at each of the various
interchange areas, such as highway elevation, topography, and tree lines, had to be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Wyatt next reviewed the proposed regulations with the Commission,
which included setback requirements, number of free - standing signs permitted, spacing,
size, permitted heights based on elevations of the interchange area, and maintenance. Mr.
Wyatt said that the Board of Supervisors is interested in providing final resolution during
their meeting of May 10.
There was general concurrence from the Planning Commission on the
concepts presented by the staff at this point.
Mr. Wyatt next discussed district boundaries for the Interstate Area Overlay
District and described two approaches that could be used to delineate them. One approach,
which was similar to a method utilized by the City of Winchester, used a center point at
the interchange area and covered a "diamond- shaped" area for a certain distance from the
center point. The other approach designated properties that met certain qualifying criteria;
for example, the zoning of the property permitted specific SIC Codes for commercial
businesses and the property was in conformance with the idealized interchange development
pattern in the Comprehensive Plan. Every property with an existing business zoning in a
designated area would automatically be included in the Overlay District. This "existing
zoning" approach resulted in varying- shaped Interstate Area Overlay Districts.
Commissioners and staff discussed the pros and cons of the two different
approaches. It was pointed out that the "diamond- shaped" designation may be arbitrary,
especially if it is established so that someone who is just outside of the designated area is
not considered. On the other hand, Commissioners felt that a designated distance was
necessary in order to be able to make a decision. It was noted that the "diamond pattern"
could be used as a guideline, but it didn't have to be set in stone.
In the "existing zoning" approach, Commissioners questioned where they
could draw the line to stop the overlay district if businesses development continued to
3993
9
expand; for example, the area at Exit 313 behind Delco Plaza.
The staff and Commission also reviewed the allowable SIC Code uses. The
food, gas, and lodging uses were acceptable to everyone, but there were mixed feelings on
allowing general merchandise and apparel stores. It was noted that the outlet shopping
stores strive to pull travelers off the interstate. Commissioners also pointed out the fact
that VDOT's interstate signs were getting to be very expensive - -$650 each direction. It was
felt that VDOT was doing businesses an injustice.
Other opinions voiced were that 60' signs were not necessary at any place
along the Route 50 corridor and maybe not even along I -81. Other opinions stressed that
the economic aspect should not be forgotten.
Chairman DeHaven conducted an informal poll of Conunissioners and the
majority felt that the "diamond pattern" for designating the Interstate Area Overlay
District would be the best if it could be established as a guideline and allow for individual
consideration of properties. They also felt that a Statement of Policy should be
incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Commissioners felt that overall, this was an outstanding and
extremely innovative approach.
1995 -2996 DRAFT WORK PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
Mr. Watkins presented the draft proposal for the 1995 -1996 Work Program
for the Department of Planning and Development. He reviewed each of the department's
goals for the 1995 -1996 calendar year.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, the
Commission unanimously endorsed the work program as presented.
3994
io
ADJOURNMENT
No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
C &&'- (
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
3995