Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_11-06-91_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 November 6, 1991. PRESENT- Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Beverly Sherwood, Vice Chairman; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John Marker, Back Creek District; Carl M. McDonald, Back Creek District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; Todd D. Shenk, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large; Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison; and James Barnett, City Liaison. Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of October 2, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee - 11/4191 Mtg Mr. Watkins said that the subcommittee discussed a preliminary staff report on 3413 2 housing and population trends,' a request by the Sanitation Authority to extend sewer to Shenandoah Mobile Home Park on Route 522 South and requests for sewer service areas around the town of Stephens City. Ordinance Subcommittee - 10/21/91 Mtg, Mr. Thomas said that the subcommittee discussed allowing railroad spurs between different zoning areas. Mr. Thomas said that this issue will be analyzed by the staff and Ordinance Subcommittee before it is brought to the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION BY THE CITIZENS FOR A QUALITY COMMUNITY Ms. Martha A. Wolfe, Chairman of the Land Use Committee for the Citizens for a Quality Community (CQC), read a prepared statement on the CQC's efforts to designate scenic and historic byways in Frederick County. She explained the procedure for having a highway designated scenic or historic by the Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Historic Resources (VDHR) and said that the CQC plans to submit a list of roads for consideration. She said that VDHR will come to Frederick County and assess the roads according to specific criteria. After their assessment, the state will request a letter of assurance from the Board of Supervisors verifying that the Board agrees in concept to the designation of scenic byways. Mrs. Wolfe said that the designations have no bearing on land use decisions by the local government. Mr. Thomas expressed concern that someone may encounter difficulties if they wanted to develop along a scenic road. Mr. Stiles inquired how the scenic byway designation would impact a proposal for major reconstruction of a road. He also expressed concern on how the designation would impact a proposal for new development or a proposal that would increase traffic along a scenic byway. Mr. Stiles felt that the property owners along the proposed road should be notified because the designation would affect their property values. Mr. Thomas suggested that the staff review the guide for Virginia Byway Management submitted by Mrs. Wolfe and present a summary of their impression of its contents to the Commission. Mr. Thomas's impression was that the designation was for public awareness with no significant impacts, but he suggested the review for potential impacts and pitfalls. The other commissioners were in agreement. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3414 3' Rezoning Application #008 -91 of Williams /Bartley to rezone 2.82 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Tabled Mr. Watkins gave the background information. He said that the staff is concerned, since the site is composed of several lots, that there be some guarantees that the site will be planned as a unit under a single masterplan or site plan. Mr. Watkins said that this would provide for a better traffic design and entrance location. It was noted by the Commission that this property is presently subdivided into five lots and if it is rezoned, could be sold as such. Mr. Bill Tisinger was present to represent the owners, Zuckerman Enterprises, Inc. and the A. J. Bartley, Sr. Estate. Mr. Tisinger said that the owners are unwilling, at this point in time, to make the commitment that the property will be developed as one piece. Mr. Tisinger said that the owners currently have no use in mind for the property. Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mrs. Regina A. Nischan, adjoining property owner on 1249 Etnam Street, Pembridge Heights, said that she, along with a number of other property owners who were present from the Pembridge Heights subdivision, were in serious opposition to the rezoning and she presented a petition from the residents in the area. Mrs. Nischan said that their concerns were that the rezoning would compound the traffic congestion that already exists, that there were ample properties in the area already zoned for business, and that business zoning would devalue their residential properties. Ms. Allison M. Mundy, 1241 Etnam Street, Pembridge Heights, expressed concern about increasing traffic congestion and increased commercial establishments in the area. Mrs. Mundy said that her section of Pembridge Heights, called Abrams Chase, contains 25 existing homes with approximately 25 -30 remaining undeveloped lots. Mrs. Mundy said that of the 22 homeowners contacted, 21 homeowners were opposed to the rezoning. Mrs. Robin Damico, 1800 Clarendon Court, Pembridge Heights, did not want to view a commercial establishment from her back yard and she was also concerned about the traffic. Ms. Elizabeth Apple, 1183 Etnam Street, Pembridge Heights, had concerns about the noise, loitering, and safety hazards that may result from commercial development. Mr. James Gibbens, resident in an adjoining subdivision, was concerned about traffic and road maintenance. 3415 4 Upon motion by Mrs. Sherwood, seconded by Mr. McDonald, and unanimously passed, the Pembridge Heights petition was made a part of the official record (attached at end of minutes). Mr. Stiles suggested that due to the concerns raised by adjoining homeowners, that the Commission table the rezoning so the applicants could consider proffers to address the concerns. Mr. Stiles suggested a commitment by the applicants to limit access to one per ownership. He also suggested some commitments on buffering /screening and turn lanes for entrances. Mr. Stiles felt that if there was going to be any reasonable planning in this area and any reasonable protection for the property owners, that this group of lots needed to be considered as one and should have a proffer that they will be master planned as a single site and a site plan presented. The other Commissioners were in agreement. Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table for 60 days Rezoning Application #008 -91 of Williams /Bartley to rezone 2.82 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General). This property is located one mile east of I -81 on Route 50 East, adjacent to the north side of Route 50, east of Purdue Drive, and is identified with GPIN numbers 64A00004000016, 64A00004000017, 6400004000018, 64A00004000019 and 64A00004000020. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RURAL AREA ZONING REGULATIONS Mr. Tierney presented the proposed rural area zoning regulations as recommended by the Rural Issues Committee. Mr. Tierney said that the Committee has strived to keep the amendments as simple as possible, to protect the rights of the property owners and, at the same time, develop a system to better preserve the rural area of the county. Mr. Tierney reviewed the regulations with the Commission. Mr. Tierney said that at the request of the Top of Virginia Builders Association, he met with members of the organization to discuss elements of the proposed amendments to the Rural Areas Zoning Regulations which caused them concern. Although there was not sufficient time to meet with the Rural Issues Committee prior to the Planning Commission's meeting, the staff felt that most of the concerns raised could be addressed to the satisfaction of the builders and the Subcommittee. The concerns raised were: 1) The frontage requirement of 500' on existing state - maintained roads was excessive and that at a minimum, family lots should have a reduced frontage requirement. Staff felt that it would be permissible to allow a reduced frontage requirement for family lots and suggested a compromise of 300'. 3416 2) Under design standard exemptions for minor rural subdivisions, the association felt that curb and gutter and underground utilities should be added to the list of exemptions. Staff felt it was not the intent of the Committee to require curb and gutter and that this was an oversight. 3) The minimum spacing for driveways on existing state - maintained roads be 200'. Staff felt that this might be an area for compromise since the frontage requirement discussed above, in addition to VDOT sight distance requirements, will effect the placement of driveways. 4) A ten foot rather than a five foot interval should be allowed for topography on sketch plans to permit the use of standard USGS maps. Staff endorsed this recommendation. Mr. Tierney said that two remaining concerns dealt with the provision of buildable area. The proposed regulations would net out environmental features such as steep slopes and flood plains from the gross acreage used to determine the permitted number of building lots on a parcel. The builders felt this was arbitrary and should be eliminated. The final area of concern was the regulation governing the 40% parcel. Mr. Tierney said that the builders felt the 25 -year period was excessive and requested that it be linked to amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tierney suggested that it be tied to a rezoning. The following comments were made by Commission members: Concerning the 10' intervals on USGS maps, Mr. Thomas felt it would be difficult to distinguish buildable area on that scale and recommended that the five foot interval be used. Regarding the issue of netting out steep slopes and wetlands from buildable areas, Mr. Stiles felt these areas should be included, otherwise the ordinance would be unworkable in mountainous areas of the county. Mr. Stiles also felt that the two -acre subdivision needed to be adopted as an option to the existing five -acre division without state - maintained roads. This would allow the property owner to choose based on the features of the land. The Commission next discussed the setback/buffer requirements and road frontage requirements. Some members felt that it would be difficult to get the maximum allowed density because of the road frontage requirements and perimeter setback requirements. Some members also felt that the fencing requirement between residential and agricultural zones was excessive. Construction of state - maintained roads was another item of concern among the Commissioners. It was noted that if someone needed to construct a state - maintained road, without lots on either side of the road, it would not be cost effective. Other commissioners were in favor of requiring state - maintained roads so that the burden of road upkeep would not be placed on a homeowners association. Chairman Golladay called for public comment and the following persons came forward: 3417 0 Mr. Robin Carper came forward to express opposition to the proposed regulations. Mr. Carper felt the proposed rural regulations countermand county officials' claims to secure low and moderate income housing in the county. He felt that most of the issues contained in the regulations were inflationary. Mr. Fred Harper, resident and developer in the western part of the county, was opposed to setting aside portions of his property, principally because the State Health Department had already set aside about 80% of his land for open space with their drainfield regulations. Mr. Harper said the there is a lot of hilly, rocky land and land that will not perc west of Route 600. He said there was no way to cluster two -acre lots west of Route 600. He felt the five -acre subdivision was better suited to western Frederick County. Mr. Harper said that the perc sites are so scattered on ridges and plateaus that he could not afford to build roads to them. Another area of concern for Mr. Harper was the 500' road frontage requirement for two -acre tracts. He said that he could not provide low cost housing if a state - maintained road was required. Mr. Harper was also concerned about the lack of a provision for existing five -acre subdivisions that contain existing roads and perc sites, but plats have not yet been recorded. He felt there was no provision protecting the developer in this respect. Finally, Mr. Hamer felt that requiring five foot interval topography for anything less than a very large subdivision would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Harper suggested using a 20' interval in the western part of the county because of the large tracts that are dealt with. Mrs. Claudia Bean, President of the Citizens for a Quality Community (CQC), stated that conceptually, the CQC is in support of the Subcommittee and staff's efforts to preserve the rural area of the county with the proposed regulations; however, the CQC felt it could not support this particular draft of the regulations. Mrs. Bean said that CQC had the following recommendations: 1) the county needed to do a groundwater survey; 2) the five -acre lot size should remain the permitted use and a two -acre lot option should be permitted with a special use permit; 3) rural neighborhood development should be arranged around the urban area to serve as a buffer between urban, agricultural and rural areas; 4) areas beyond the rural neighborhood development should be a minimum of 50 acres per house to protect agriculture; 5) the 40% lot requirement should be tied to an easement; and 6) the historic, scenic and certain environmental areas should be the fast priority in determining the 40% lot requirement. Mrs. Bean said that CQC felt that under the proposed regulations, the best agricultural land would be used for residential development and the 40% parcel would contain the less desirable land. CQC also felt that all roads should be built to state - standards. Finally, Mrs. Bean read an article from the June 23, 1991 Washington Post pertaining to Howard County's failed attempts to preserve agricultural land. Mrs. Sherwood expressed concern that issues were being raised to this degree at this point in time, after the Subcommittee had held public meetings requesting public input. She 3418 7 noted that the regulations were designed to be flexible and were written with open areas /forested land in mind, as well as agricultural land. The general consensus of the Commission was that the proposal as presented was good, but needed some minor changes. They felt that the regulations should be sent back to the Subcommittee to attempt to address some of the concerns raised by the Commission and the public. In summary, the recommendations were: 1) that floodplains, steep slopes and other environmental areas be included in calculating total buildable area; 2) that the setback /buffer between agricultural and residential zoned land be reduced and the fencing requirement eliminated; 3) the addition of the standard five -acre lot division without state - maintained roads as an option to the two -acre, 40% parcel divisions; 4) eliminate the requirement for state - maintained roads on family divisions; 5) the addition of a provision for phased developments already in progress containing non - state - maintained roads; and 6) consider a reduction in the 25- year restriction on the 40% parcel. Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and second by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby agree to table the proposed rural area regulations until the next regularly scheduled meeting in order for the Subcommittee to address the concerns raised. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 19:10 p.m. by unanimous vote. Reespectfully sub / miffed,, Robert W. Watkins, Secre ry 4'�� /v James . Golladay, Jr., Ch rman 3419 WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF PEMBRIDGE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA WANT IT KNOWN THAT WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE PETITION FOR REZONING OF 2.82 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED OFF HWY. 50 EAST & 17 SOUTH, EAST OF INTERSTATE 81 FROM RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING /BUILDING A CONVIENCE STORE OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WHERE A SUBSTANTIAL NEW S BDIVISION OF SINGLE FAMILY.HOMES HAVE AND ARE CURRENTLY BEING B IL , ALONG IT TWO LONG STANDING SUBDIVISIONS, AND AREA IS RE Dy A A AIL CONGESTED AND BUSY TRAFFI REA. 1 Q 4i E-F- cuyi, 04tu o t / --,� q q C+n r;k a-) .S +r - c+ 1,2 F_rt aNl Srg i /234 ce 206 Tti�� sr Uc I ) Ct 11i -�i s o9 v2vv� �. 1 18 3 E -I am i5+- re l 3420 3421 � PAGE TWO - PETITION