Loading...
PC_05-03-95_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 May 3, 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; Richard C. Shickle, Gainesboro District, Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison. ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison Planning Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - MEETING OF APRIL 5. 1995 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the meeting minutes of April 5, 1995 were unanimously approved as presented. 3996 z BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 4/13/95 Mtg. Mr. Wyatt reported that the DRRS will have a special meeting on May 11 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss minor collector road standards. 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 were mailed to land owners within the bounds of the Round Hill Community Center. Historic Resources Advisory Board Mr. Tierney said that the Board of Supervisors awarded plaques for ten local historic sites that were recognized as nationally significant. Economic Development Commission Mr. Romine reported that the EDC is beginning to get involved with the George Washington Hotel solution, the Grimm property, and a plastics recycling program. Mr. Romine said that the EDC is also discussing cooperative purchasing and integrated networking under the guidance of Shenandoah College. 3997 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Rezoning Application #001 -95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway to rezone 2.047 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B3 (Industrial Transition). This property is identified with PIN 42 -A -249 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Tabled for 90 Days Mr. Tierney presented a letter from Mr. Wayne R. Ridgeway requesting that the Planning Commission table consideration of his rezoning application for up to 90 days so that he can address some of the staffs concerns. Mr. Tierney said that Mr. Ridgeway is proposing a retail hardware store with equipment rental including U -Haul trucks and trailers. He said that the applicant has submitted a proffer which excludes a number of the uses permitted in B3 Zoning and offers to contribute the amount necessary to offset the projected impact to Fire and Rescue, however, there are a number of uses which would remain that the staff feels would not be appropriate. He said that those uses would be mobile home dealers, gas stations, and self - service storage facilities. Mr. Tierney said that other staff concerns involved the Health Department comments, in which they state that the septic system is "not suitable for anything other than its present use" and traffic. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Barbara Kidwell, adjoining property owner, presented a petition with 38 signatures of residents within a quarter mile of the property under consideration, who were opposed to the rezoning. Mrs. Kidwell said that the public hearing notice was posted on new Route 522 and most of the people in her neighborhood travel Route 789 to the stop light at the Virginia Farm Market, so she felt many people were not aware a rezoning was pending. She stated that her neighborhood was a densely populated residential area and she was concerned about the U -Haul rentals because of the traffic and strangers that could result at all hours of the day and night. She was also concerned about stormwater runoff. Mrs. Kidwell said that an issue was raised that this area has established businesses; she noted that these businesses, such as Ridge Country Store, Omps Garage, the Bus Shop, and the Virginia Farm Market cannot be seen from her residential neighborhood. She said that the only visible business is the beauty salon, which is operating under a conditional use permit, and it has limited hours and minimal traffic. Mrs. Kidwell was concerned that B3 Zoning opened this property up to other objectionable uses and some of those uses could devalue homes and properties. Mrs. Kidwell added that some of the neighbors she spoke with felt that if this was a conditional permit, or if it was strictly a hardware store, or if it had the entrance strictly on 3998 0 new Route 522, they would consider it more favorably. Mr. Glen Combs, representing Bethel Luthren Church, said that Bethel Church owns a parsonage directly across the property under consideration. Mr. Combs said that Bethel Church is in opposition because it would reduce the value of surrounding residential properties. He said that they were also opposed because of the additional traffic, both automobiles and trucks, and strangers to the area. He added that this is a residential area and they would like for it to remain that way. Mr. Joe Lizer said that his wife, Lita, and himself own the property adjoining the proposed rezoning site and his wife operates the beauty shop. Mr. Lizer said that seven years ago, the Feathers proposed B2 Zoning for a used car lot on this site and he felt this was not the best use for the site. Mr. Lizer said that the Planning Commission denied that B2 use and now, Mr. Feathers and Mr. Ridgeway are asking for a B3 use. Mr. Lizer said that both he and his wife have concerns about the U- Hauls, the outdoor storage, and the possibility of a fence around the property. Mr. Lizer felt this site did not meet the County's criteria for a B3 Zoning. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table consideration of Rezoning Application #001 -95 of Wayne R. Ridgeway for 90 days, at the applicant's request. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, the Commission voted unanimously to make the petition submitted by Mrs. Kidwell a part of the official record. Conditional Use Permit #004 -95 of Roger L. Gardner for an automotive repair shop without body repair. This property is located at 472 Bloomery Pike (Route 127) in Whitacre and is identified with PIN 11 -A -24E in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller said that the applicant will construct a new building to accommodate his use. He said that the proposed location will be screened from Bloomery Pike (Rt. 127) due to elevation and it will be screened from an adjoining residence by a wooded area. He said that the residence is 500' away. Mr. Miller added that a relocated entrance site on the north side of the property has been agreed upon by VDOT and Mr. Gardner. Mr. Roger L. Gardner, the owner and applicant, was available to answer 3999 W questions from the Commission. There were no citizen comments. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed use would not significantly impact the neighborhood. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #004 -95 of Roger L. Gardner for an automotive repair shop without body repair with the following conditions: 1. The entrance to the property shall be relocated and constructed as required by VDOT prior to opening for business. 2. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 3. All work shall take place entirely within an enclosed building. 4. No outside storage of parts or equipment shall be permitted and no inoperative vehicles will be allowed to be stored on the property. 5. No more than five vehicles awaiting repair shall be located on the property at any time. 6. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Renewal of the 1995 Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The renewal of the Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District will preserve approximately 15,000 acres of property within the Back Creek Magisterial District and the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District is scheduled for renewal this Spring and this will be the third renewal for this district which was established in 1980. He said that during the 15 -year existence of this district, significant agricultural properties have continued to request to remain in this district and at this time, the proposed district consists of almost 15,000 acres (216 properties; 89 individual property owners). 4000 r Mr. Wyatt said that the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this district during their meeting of April 11, 1995 and recommended approval of the district. The ADAC also recommended that restrictions be placed on these properties to prohibit traditional five -acre lot subdivisions and rural preservation lot subdivisions. He said that this restriction does not prohibit family lot divisions and land divisions for agricultural purposes. There were no citizen comments. The Commission expressed concern about the impact this district might have on the construction or improvement of road and corridor networks. Mr. Wyatt stated that there are provisions in the State Code that allows state agencies or public utilities a minimal amount of access, however, that would need to go before the Board of Supervisors for approval. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the renewal of the 1995 Southern Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District to preserve approximately 15,000 acres of property within the Back Creek Magisterial District. An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165 -60, Conditional Uses, to permit veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Wyatt stated that on April 5, 1995, the Commission and staff informally discussed the potential for permitting veterinary offices, clinics, or hospitals with a conditional use permit in the RP District. He said that the Planning Commission felt that the use was conducive to residential areas, provided that commercial kennels were not permitted as an accessory use to the operation. He said that the Planning Commission also felt that performance standards could not be created across the board for the RP District due to the characteristics associated with each development. There were no public comments. The Commission felt that inclusion of this use in the RP District under the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Ordinance would allow both the Commission and Board to restrict any particular site. Mr. Marker said that he received a few phone calls regarding this from people 4001 in his district. He pointed out that this is not an across - the -board use in the RP, but is permitted with a conditional use permit. Upon motion made by Mr. Stone and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the ordinance to amend Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, Residential Performance District, Section 165 -60, Conditional Uses, as follows: 165 -60 Conditional Uses Uses permitted with a conditional use permit F. Veterinary Offices, Clinics, or Hospitals, excluding boarding of animals for non- medical purposes. An amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, to create a new Article which will be entitled, IA Interstate Area Overlay Zone. The proposed Article will allow identified properties at the eight Interstate Sl interchange areas to erect free standing conunercial business signs that are of a greater height and square footage. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that during the April 19, 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission felt that the overall concept of the IA Overlay District was appropriate and that the DRRS's comments should be incorporated into the final draft for public hearing. He said that the Commission also felt that defined boundaries should be used to designate the properties to be included in the IA Overlay District in its initial state. Mr. Wyatt reported that during the Board of Supervisors' April 26, 1995 meeting, several Board members stated that they did not have significant concerns with signs being taller or greater in square footage than what was proposed, if it was for the economic good of Frederick County. He said that a recommendation to increase the maximum height above mean sea level at each interchange by an additional ten feet was made, as well as a recommendation to increase the maximum square footage for individual signs and shared -pole signs by 100 square feet. 4002 N Mr. Wyatt reviewed each of the additions and /or changes that were made at the Commission's April 19th meeting and the suggestions made at the Board's April 26th meeting. Mr. Thomas Rockwood, Attorney, said that he was representing Nick and Kathy Nerangis and Nerangis Enterprises in a pending lawsuit which is challenging the validity of a variance granted for one particular sign at the Route 11 Interchange in Frederick County. Mr. Rockwood said that he was speaking in support of the County's existing sign regulations. He said that his client has been in the fast food business in Frederick County for some years and has shown himself and his companies to be a major asset to this community, both in community activities and financially, in terms of tax revenue. Mr. Rockwood said that the Commission has been asked to produce a major policy change to previous County sign regulations in a very short period of time in which, he believed, was in response to a particular difficulty or confusion over how sign regulations should be enforced and interpreted as they now exist. Mr. Rockwood commented that the Board of Supervisors indicated at their April 26th meeting a desire for increases in the square footage and height of signs above those proposed in the IA Overlay District by the Commission. Mr. Rockwood asked that the Commission consider that the County's sign ordinance and the height restrictions have been in place for many years and, specifically speaking for Mr. Nerangis, the sign ordinances have worked well and his businesses have prospered. He said that there is no reason to lightly, quickly, or in response to a specific case before the Circuit Court, convert what is now a dispute between private litigants and the BZA involving one parcel, into a county -wide policy which will effect all of the parcels in the designated areas and that will make a major change in the face of the community. Mr. Rockwood said that in terms of the efficacy of these signs, Mr. Nerangis has related that his sign at the Route 11 business location has been in place since that business opened. He said that when the blue interstate highway sign was installed designating to the I -81 traveling public the existence of the McDonalds, Mr. Nerangis's volume jumped over 20% and that volume has remained at the higher level consistently. Mr. Rockwood said that the blue signs work. He said that they work to induce interstate travellers to use these businesses, they work to reduce visual clutter and aesthetic blight, which he felt resulted from the installation of many signs of great height and area. Mr. Rockwood added that this matter has been studied by the Chamber of Commerce, which has proposed a lowering of height limits in the entry corridors to the City, and this policy has also been subscribed to by the Economic Development Commission. Mr. Rockwood said that the existing policy was not lightly considered; he said that it has been in effect and has worked well for Frederick County and is supported by business entities in Frederick County for many years and he felt it was not time to change it. There were no other public comments. Mr. Sager, Board Liaison, said the size increases recommended by the Board were just one part of several recommendations, one of which was the inclusion of using signs to advertise shopping malls or outlets. Mr. Sager said that the Board felt that in certain areas, 4003 2 there was a need for visibility. He said that the Board recommended the larger sizes as a means of developing a better revenue source. Mr. Ours said that he served on the Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force and, therefore, he remembers what that Committee was trying to accomplish. Mr. Ours said that the Task Force felt there was a need for consistency in our signs. He pointed out that signs were just one of a number of elements that were addressed in the Task Force's recommendation. He said that personally, he would not support any increased sizes. Mr. Ours felt the Overlay District could be a workable part of this, but he felt the limits had been reached. The majority of the Planning Commissioners felt that 200 square feet should be the maximum limit for free standing business signs in the IA Overlay District and that 400 square feet should be the maximum size for signs that share a common support pole. The Commission also felt that the advertised heights above mean sea level were appropriate based on the topography and existing land uses at each interchange. It was also noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals needed to understand the intent of this new article and be willing to support it as a remedy for working with property owners within the interstate interchange areas. Chairman DeHaven said that he did not agree with the viewpoint that larger signs were needed to draw the public off of the interstate, but if this is what is decided, his concern was that the larger and taller signs are not placed the whole way down the corridor. Chairman DeHaven preferred the moderately -sized signs to improve the appearance and eliminate clutter, even at the interchange areas. Mr. Shickle said that he supported the Board's recommendations, however, there was more about the proposed amendment that he agreed with than disagreed with. Mr. Wilson said that he did not have a problem with the Board's recommendations. Mr. Light moved to adopt the IA (Interstate Area) Overlay District guidelines as presented and advertised. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, to create a new article entitled, "IA (Interstate Area) Overlay Zone." This proposed article will allow identified properties at eight I -81 interchange areas to erect free standing commercial business signs that are of a greater height and square footage. This amendment was approved by a majority vote as follows: 4004 10 YES (TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED): Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Wilson, Romine, Shickle, Ours NO: DeHaven (Mr. Thomas and Mr. Morris were absent.) An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -30, Signs, to revise the minimum spacing, height, size, maintenance, and permitting requirements for signs as defined in Chapter 165. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt presented the proposed sign ordinance amendments as recommended by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) and the Chamber of Commerce Corridor Appearance Task Force (CATF). Mr. Wyatt said that these recommendations were created to assist with the long term appearance of roadway corridors leading into the community. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff believed that the proposed amendments reflected the community as a whole to ensure consistency in the commercial and industrial areas and to mitigate problems when less significant or future commercial and industrial corridors are developed throughout the County. Mr. Wyatt said that during the Planning Commission's previous discussion of this amendment on November 16, concerns were expressed about the increase in the minimum spacing requirements between freestanding business signs and the requirements of this section applying to property that is in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS discussed this issue and felt that the proposed language for minimum spacing requirements provided some relief in that the Zoning Administrator may reduce the minimum distance in specific situations. He said that the DRRS also felt that these requirements should pertain to all businesses, regardless of the zoning classification of the property that the business was located on. There were no public comments. The Planning Commission felt that the amendments were consistent with the desires of the business community. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend 4005 11 approval of the amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -30, Signs, to revise the minimum spacing, height, size, maintenance, and permitting requirements for signs as defined in Chapter 165. This resolution was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED): Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Ours NO: Shickle (Mr. Morris and Mr. Thomas were absent.) Revised Master Development Plan #003 -95 of Regency Lakes Estates. The applicants are proposing to revise the current master development plan to realign roads within the development and to provide future roadway connections to the Caleb Heights property located to the north. The remaining 106.9 acres are proposed to be developed to provide single and double wide mobile homes. This property is identified as PIN 86 -A -20 in the Stonewall District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers for this project, said that he was representing the owners, Oakwood Land Development Company. Mr. Maddox said that this property was rezoned in the mid 1980's and a master development plan was a part of the proffer for rezoning. He stated that the revised plan calls for less units and is well below the allowable gross density. He explained that the average lot size has increased from a minimum 4,000 square feet in Section A, to 5,000 square feet in Section C, and is now approaching 6,000 square feet in Section D. Mr. Maddox discussed the revised collector roads; he noted that 40' of right -of -way has been dedicated from this property for the collector road (this is half the right -of -way needed); and he noted that the buffer along the northern property line was inadvertently left off the revised plan, however, it will be placed on the final plan as a full screen (a berm with plantings) with a 35' distance buffer. Mr. Wyatt said that all the concerns of the staff were addressed by Mr. Maddox's comments, however, the final master plan needed to better define the road efficiency buffer along the major collector road. There were no public comments. 4006 12 The Planning Commission had no problems with the revisions provided that the applicant address all comments and concerns of the staff, the review agencies, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Revised Master Development Plan #003 -95 of Regency Lakes Estates with the stipulation that the Final Master Development Plan include statements regarding the development of the collector roads, a description of the road efficiency buffer along the major collector road, a statement that provides the amount of property that would be dedicated for the major collector road, and the inclusion of a 35 foot buffer with full screening along the northern property line. Revised Master Development Plan #002 -95 of Coventry Courts for the development of 14.52 acres for single - family housing. This property is located on the west side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), approximately 2,000 feet north of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) and Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and is identified as PIN 55 -A -185 in the Shawnee District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Tierney said that the property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and adjoins RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) land. He said that the plan was originally approved for 38 single - family cluster lots. Mr. Tierney stated that the original road layout was similar to the revised plan, but involved a second entrance on Greenwood Road. He explained that the current plan eliminates that second connection, eliminates four lots, and increases the minimum lot size from 8,000 to 12,000 square feet. Mr. Tierney said that there were some concerns with the revised plan as originally submitted. He said that most of those concerns have been addressed, however, there is still some uncertainty concerning the location of woodlands and the amount of disturbance to woodlands and steep slopes. He said that the other concern involves phasing and, in particular, the through connection to the Abrams Point tract being designated as a phase by itself (Phase IV) and the final stage of the development. Mr. Tierney said that some assurances need to be made that Phase IV will be completed. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the consulting engineers, said that he was representing the owner, Elaine B. Longerbeam. Mr. Gyurisin said that the crossover to Abrams Point will be built with the development of Section IV and as lots are put on record, the applicant will work with the staff to provide a bond. With regard to the disturbance of woodland areas, Mr. Gyurisin said that the applicant will work with the staff to 4007 13 clearly identify that area and meet Code requirements. He said that they have kept as much of the development as possible on the Greenwood Road portion of the site in order to limit the amount of disturbance to the steep sloped area, which is located on the west side of this property. Mr. Gyurisin added that they have lowered the number of lots from 38 single - family cluster lots to 34 single - family detached lots at 12,000 square feet or greater. He said that the plan was also revised to show only one entrance, Farmington Boulevard, which comes off Greenwood Road. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mrs. Bettie E. Winslow, adjoining property owner, said that traffic is the major concern of the residents in this area. She said that they have seen a considerable increase in traffic since traffic lights were installed on Berryville Avenue. She said that Greenwood Road is used as a shortcut from Route 7 to Route 50 and from Route 50 into Winchester. Mrs. Winslow said that at peak traffic times, it is almost impossible for the residents along Greenwood Road to pull out of their driveways. She said that VDOT has stated that Greenwood Road is not scheduled to be widened for two years and she requested that a turn lane into this development be constructed until Greenwood Road could be widened. Mrs. Winslow said that another minor concern of area residents is drainage, because of all the steep slopes on this property. Mr. Tierney stated that it was not generally uncommon for the staff to have questions on the delineations for steep slopes or woodlands; however, the concern here is that there are so much woodlands and so many steep slopes, that the applicant is very close to the limits of the maximum allowable disturbance. He said that under these circumstances, we need to make sure that they are within the limits. Mr. Charles Maddox, also of G. W. Clifford & Associates, responded by saying that because this revised master plan had less lots than the original plan, he felt it was less intrusive on the environment. Mr. Maddox said that a requirement approaching the elimination of development in woodland areas was not appropriate because generally, those areas are the most desirable for residential development because of quality of life issues. Mr. Maddox said that this development qualifies for woodland disturbance, since it is a single - family development. He said that he was willing to work with the staff to assure that disturbance met requirements. Regarding stormwater management, Mr. Maddox explained that the bridge across the creek would be outfitted with a pipe which is sized somewhat smaller than what is normally required by VDOT. Mr. Maddox explained how the detention devise worked. He said that once the bridge is built, substantial stormwater improvement will take place along this area. The Planning Commission felt that the bridge /crossover would have to be bonded at 50% lot build out. The Commission was also in agreement that the applicant needed to accurately identify the location and amount of disturbance to environmental features. Both Mr. Gyurisin and Mr. Maddox agreed that bonding could be supplied at 50% build out. Mr. 4008 14 Maddox also noted that he would work with the staff on designation of the environmental areas. Mr. Romine moved to approve the Revised Master Development Plan and this was seconded by Mr. Shickle. Mr. Marker moved to amend Mr. Romine's motion to state that the crossover/ bridge should be bonded at 50% lot build out. This motion was seconded and unanimously passed. The Commission unanimously approved the amended motion, as follows: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Revised Master Development Plan #002 -95 of Coventry Courts to develop 14.52 acres for single- family housing, contingent on the following: 1. The applicant will supply information which satisfactorily demonstrates the accuracy of the location, and the amount of disturbance to, environmental features, and that the amount of the disturbance does not exceed permitted limits, and; 2. Bonding will need to be provided at 50% lot build out to guarantee the completion of the bridge /crossover on Farmington Boulevard, indicated as Phase IV. Request Pertaining to Exemption from Subdivision Ordinance Requirements, Section 144 - 17.L and Section 144 -18.A, Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks. Action - Recommended Denial Mr. Tierney said that the staff received a letter from Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam, the owner of Coventry Courts, to Mr. John R. Riley, Jr., the County Administrator, requesting an exemption from the Subdivision Ordinance requirements that require curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for subdivisions containing lots under 15,000 square feet. He said that the Subdivision Ordinance has a provision to allow for exemptions, based on cases of "unusual situations" or "substantial injustice or hardship." He said that Mrs. Longerbeam's position was that the total number of lots has been reduced, the lot size has increased, the original plan did not require curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and the connection to Greenwood Road was eliminated; and therefore, based on these changes, she should not be required to install the curb, gutter, and sidewalks in the current design. Mr. Tierney said that the staff's position was that these changes did not constitute a hardship or an unusual situation. Mr. Tierney said that the fact that the revision to the MDP contains four fewer lots and eliminates an entrance onto Greenwood Road does not, in the staff's opinion, have any bearing on whether or not the requirement for curb, gutter, and sidewalks constitutes a hardship. He said that with regard to the through connection to Abrams Point, this 4009 15 connection has been in the Eastern Road Plan since its conception. He said that this connection was required by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and was a component of the original MDP, not a change from the original plan. Mr. Tierney pointed out some recent instances where master plans were approved, then revised, and the subsequent subdivisions were required to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the consulting engineers for this project, was present to represent Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam and the Coventry Courts Master Plan. Mr. Maddox said that due to the fact that this was a small project, the construction of the bridge /crossover associated with the site imposed a hardship because of the resulting cost of individual lots. Mr. Wyatt said that in the near future, the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) will be discussing minor collector road standards. Mr. Wyatt said a problem facing the County is not being able to build collector roads through areas with established lot frontages because of public opposition. Mr. Wyatt said that lot owners are usually opposed because there is no where for them to walk, to bike, and there are safety concerns. He said that when the DRRS reviews collector road requirements, they will more than likely recommend sidewalks on both sides of the collector roads that have lots fronting on them. The majority of Commissioners felt that sidewalks on both sides of a collector road were absolutely necessary and that either sidewalks, curbs and gutters, or a pathway system connecting each lot with the sidewalk system on the collector road should be required. The Commission felt there was neither a unique or unusual situation associated with this request that would enable the County to waive the requirements here and continue to apply it elsewhere. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the request of Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam for exemption from Subdivision Ordinance Requirements 144 -17.L and 144 -18.A for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at the Coventry Courts site be denied in the best interest of quality development for Frederick County. The vote on this resolution was as follows: YES (TO DENY THE EXEMPTION): Copenhaver, Light, Ours, Shickle, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, NO: Romine, Stone (Mr. Thomas and Mr. Morris were absent.) 4010 16 ADJOURNMENT No other business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman 4011