PC_04-18-12_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North
Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 18, 2012.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman /Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District: J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District;
Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and
Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
• Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by
Commissioner Oates to adopt the agenda for this evening's meeting as presented. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed.
•
MEETING MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 7, 2012 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
CPPC - Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan
Commissioner Mohn reported the CPPC held a public meeting so that citizens could
learn about the rough draft of the Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan. Commissioner
Mohn said there was good input from members of the various working groups. He noted that the draft
plan was also discussed at the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat. Commissioner Mohn said
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2841
Minutes of April 18, 2012
-2-
everyone seems pleased with the draft plan that has evolved and looks forward to receiving additional
is input as the plan moves through this process.
•
Sanitation Authority (SA) — 4/17/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger repotted the SA received approximately 50 new customers within
the previous quarter, which meets normal expectations. Commissioner Unger reported the elevation of
the Diehl Plant in Stephens City dropped about four feet, due to the lack of rainfall. He noted the rainfall
in March was only 1.3 inches; normal rainfall for March is about three inches. Commissioner Unger
reported some problems with the sewer main on Buckingham Drive in Stephens City and the SA is
hoping to replace the entire main because the existing concrete pipe is leaking. A problem has also been
reported at the pump station at the Hood Plant. Commissioner Unger stated that in the past, water hauling
in Frederick County has been done on an honor system; however, in the future, the SA is going to
establish two local water hydrants where water removal can be monitored. He said the SA is concerned
about inappropriate water loss when water becomes scarce due to the lack of rain.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 4/06/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported the focus of the meeting was the future of
manufacturing in the Winchester- Frederick County area. He said the staff provided a wide spectrum
analysis and there was discussion. He said the basic summation was that manufacturing is not growing in
this area like it was at one time, but it's still a very strong and very stable aspect of the local economy,
providing numerous reasonable and excellent payingjobs for this area.
City of Winchester Planning Commission — 4/17/12 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported that the Planning Commission for the City of Winchester
considered a couple conditional use permits and recommended approval. Commissioner Mohn said they
also considered some new business that included ordinance language to try and get ahead of the baseball
stadium issue and get some definitions and performance regulations established for the definitions of
arenas, amphitheaters, and stadiums. There were also a number of administrative actions handled as well.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2842
Minutes of April 18, 2012
�J
E
11
-3-
PUBLIC MEETING
Rezoning #03 -12 of Graystone Corporation to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #09 -09,
approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 2010. This revision relates to the
"Transportation Improvements" section of the proffers. The properties are located on the north
side of Redbud Road (Rt. 661), the east side of CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Rt.
662), and the south side of McCanns Road (Rt. 838). The properties are further identified by
P.LN.s 43 -A -158, 44 -A -25, and 44 -A -26 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Commissioner Oates said lie would abstain from all discussion and voting on this
rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Director - Transportation, John A. Bishop, explained this is not a public hearing
item; it falls under the new State Code which allows for minor proffer revisions without benefit of public
hearing. Mr. Bishop stated that since this property was rezoned back in 2010, the County staff has been
working very closely with the applicant to bring this roadway to fruition. He said there have been two
applications for economic development access funds totaling $1.3 million; the County will be managing
the construction of the project as required under those funds; and the County is taking part in the design
process. Mr. Bishop said about six months ago, as the design was being finalized and approved by
VDOT and the final engineering estimates were being done, the cost amount came in significantly higher
than what was expected for the project. Mr. Bishop said even with the benefit of State dollars procured,
the applicant didn't feel it was financially feasible to their overall project to move forward with the
roadway.
Mr. Bishop stated that while working with VDOT and the applicant, various suggestions
were made regarding possible value engineering items to help bring the cost of the roadway more in line
with what the applicant felt they could do. Mr. Bishop explained the U4D language has been removed,
which refers to an urban section, and would allow the elimination of the curb and guttering normally
required. It also has removed the language for a "raised" median. He said there still would be a long-
term guarantee of a divided roadway; however, the standard of the median is brought down. Mr. Bishop
noted that the turn lanes are still included, along with median separation.
Continuing, Mr. Bishop said it was important to note that under the proffers, as
previously approved and adopted, the applicant is not required to do four lanes up front; they are required
to eventually do four lanes, but only two lanes up front. Then, upgrading to four lanes, once the traffic,
whether generated by them or the neighboring developments, reaches 8,000 trips. The 8,000 trips is a
specific reference to language within VDOT's Subdivision Street Acceptance Guidelines, and that is why
that particular number is used as the trigger. He said the applicant, considering their internal financial
situation, felt it was more cost effective to go ahead with the four lanes now, but it is not required.
Commissioner Crosen asked if the median simply served as a safety protective barrier.
Mr. Bishop replied that a median accomplishes several things; he said it provides an area for additional
turn lanes, it provides a recovery area, and it provides a buffer area for oncoming traffic.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2843
Minutes of April 18, 2012
-4-
Commissioner Unger believed it was a good idea to reduce the cost of the roadway.
• However, he questioned whether the applicant will be able to afford the roadway improvements when the
traffic reaches 8,000 vehicles per day, especially if the traffic is being generated by other developments.
•
Commissioner Thomas asked if the entire section of Snowden Bridge Boulevard will
have the same geometries with this proffer change. Commissioner Thomas assumed the right -of -way
through the Route 37 section had already been provided, consistent with the same geometries as the rest
of the right -of -way. Mr. Bishop said this was correct; he said everything will have a median and it will
still be a four -lane divided section the whole way through. He said there will be some differences in
terms of curb and gutter versus non -curb and gutter, and raised median versus non - raised median; but,
there will still be a four -lane divided section the whole way through.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if there was a bond to guarantee the four lanes upon
reaching the 8,000 trips per day. Mr. Bishop replied it would be specifically tied to site plans. Mr.
Bishop said this is a large industrial site and the likelihood of it being a single user is very low. As the
additional users come in, the projected traffic will be examined. He said as the number of vehicles per
day approaches the 8,000 trips and someone comes in for a land bay, they would not be able to proceed
without meeting their obligation. i
Commissioner Kenney asked what the speed limit would be along the boulevard and if
the median would help to maintain that speed. Mr. Bishop replied it's a 45111ph design speed with an
expected 35mph speed limit. Mr. Bishop said that the median helps to maintain a calming effect for motor
vehicle operators. Commissioner Kenney asked if the proposed changes to the proffers helped to acquire
the value engineering sought by the applicant. Mr. Bishop replied it does reduce the cost and all
indications are that the applicant is more comfortable with this level of cost than the previous design.
Mr. John Goode with Graystone Corporation came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Goode thanked Mr. John Bishop for his assistance throughout the process. Mr. Goode said they
started off with a more than adequate budget to complete the project with four lanes; however, two things
happened. They dropped back from four to two lanes at Route 37 because VDOT said they needed to
account for the design of Route 37 East, which doesn't yet exist. He said they wanted to complete all four
lanes, until they encountered the problem with Route 37. He said the second issue occurred toward the
end of the process with the first set of drawings they worked with. He said a cost estimate was conducted
and it was millions of dollars higher than the original budget and the percentage increase was 80% higher
than the original budget. With that, they terminated the first engineering firm and started over with a new
engineering firm. Mr. Goode explained why he believed the road improvements would be completed
prior to approaching the maximum vehicle trips.
Mr. Goode next wanted to address the negative comments received from VDOT. Mr.
Goode said they started this process approximately nine -to -ten months ago; however, VDOT will not
review their new set of drawings until the proffer revision is approved by the County. Mr. Goode
predicted that the County would be seeing a considerable number of negative VDOT comments on
projects in the future because of VDOT's "Rolls Royce" standards for road construction. He said whether
it's public or private money or, in their case a combination of the two, he did not think paying the cost of
those high standards was feasible. Mr. Goode said it wasn't practical to put into place VDOT's ideal
median standards. Regarding VDOT's issue on the curb and gutters and transitioning, Mr. Goode said he
thought the County was moving towards eliminating curb and gutter because if water is collected, then it
has to be managed. He believed the elimination of curb and gutter served two purposes: one, it gets rid of
a lot of concrete work and second, it reduces cost and manages water. Regarding transitioning, he said
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2844
Minutes of April 18, 2012
-5-
motorists regularly travel through transitions and expecting a project like this to have no transitions is
• unrealistic. Furthermore, Mr. Goode said in spite of the fact the drop back to two lanes to accommodate
the design of Route 37 East was done because that design doesn't yet exist, in a recent meeting with
VDOT, they were criticized for the transition from four lanes to two lanes. He said they dropped back to
two lanes for a purpose; to accommodate the future Route 37 East. He stated this will be a public road
and they want VDOT to take it over when it's completed. Mr. Goode believed this will probably be the
best section of road ever constructed in Frederick County. However, he believed that VDOT's standards
were making it prohibitive for development to pay for road construction. He commented that VDOT has
stated they do not want to spend any maintenance money for at least 30 years. Mr. Goode said that
whether the money is private or public, it should not be wasted. Mr. Goode commented the applicants do
not want to put more money into the road than the project is worth.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public meeting to citizen comments and called for
anyone wishing to speak regarding this matter. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot
closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Some members of the Planning Commission were not supportive I of modifying the
transportation proffers. A Commissioner stated it was not the County taxpayers' responsibility to
subsidize a developer's project because the applicant misestimated the original cost,I when the proffers
were originally presented. He believed if a precedent is started to change developers' proffers after a
rezoning is approved to enable a contractor or developer to maximize their profit at the expense of
Frederick County's taxpayers, it would not benefit anyone. He believed VDOT's comments made sense;
particularly, that transitions are dangerous and are an impact to traffic flow. In addition, it was believed
that infrastructure needed to be initially built to last; otherwise it would present a considerable future
expense for taxpayers to maintain or rebuild.
Other members of the Planning Commission had a different perspective and were
supportive of the request under existing circumstances. A Commissioner noted that this project has been
in progress a long time and these are not the same economic times as in earlier years. It was believed the
applicant's request was reasonable; they were not in favor of unnecessary waste of resources, regardless
of who is paying for them. It was noted there is a plan in place for accommodating future volume.
Another Commissioner commented that this project will have a tremendously positive future economic
impact. The Chairman noted that this road is more than a road to an industrial park; it was a connection
to areas of the County that would also serve residential users.
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Crockett and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of Rezoning 903 -12 of Graystone Corporation to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning 409 -09,
which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 27, 2010, and relates to the transportation
improvements section of the proffers.
The recommendation for approval was passed by the following majority vote:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2845
Minutes of April 18, 2012
YES (TO APPROVE): Unger, Crosen, Ambrogi, Manuel, Crockett, Wilmot, Kenney, Triplett
40 NO: Thomas, Madagan, Lemieux, Mohn
E
ABSTAIN: Oates
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
SENSENY/ EASTERN FREDERICK URBAN AREAS LAND USE PLAN
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan provides the foundation for the Senseny/ Eastern Frederick Urban
Areas Land Use Plan, including the focus of the Working Groups, which are Urban Areas and
Residential Development, 'Business Development, Transportation, and Natural Resources, historic
Resources, and Public Facilities. This draft Plan represents the work of a large number of citizen
volunteers who have been working over the past several months in collaboration with each other.
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy; first provided the details of how the public was
involved in this effort from the beginning and he explained there was a considerable amount of public
outreach throughout the project. Mr. Ruddy explained how public introduction and input meetings were
conducted and working groups were established. He said the working groups crafted the various sections
of the Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan. Mr. Ruddy noted the various chapters that make up
the plan include the Urban Areas and Residential Development, Business Development, Transportation,
and Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities. Mr. Ruddy said these chapters are
aligned with the policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan approved last summer.
Mr. Ruddy said that following the effort of the working groups, a Facilitator Group
convened to establish one draft plan. He said after considerable discussion and some collaboration, the
Facilitator Group endorsed a draft plan on February 1, 2012. This draft was reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors at the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat. A public review and input meeting on the
draft plan was held on March 21, 2012. Mr. Ruddy announced that support for the study continues. He
noted that this plan is being presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item and will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion at their meeting on April 25.
Mr. Ruddy next presented the details of the plan and corresponding maps to the
Commission for their discussion. Regarding the land uses, Mr. Ruddy focused on some of the key
components concerning residential land uses. He said the residential land use is proposed at a higher
density than has historically occurred within the County's urban areas. In addition, there are key focal
points involving the Urban Centers, particularly the Crosspointe Urban Center, the Greenwood Urban
Center, and the Parkins Mill Urban Center/Neighborhood Village. Mr. Ruddy next talked about the
Business Development Land Uses and noted that some of the areas were somewhat redefined. Interstate
and Highway Commercial Uses at Routes 7, 50, and 522 would remain advantageous focal points;
however, some employment - oriented centers are identified on Warrior Drive extended. In addition, a
business development area has been identified as the Parkins Mill Economic Development Area, which is
a large area consisting of over than 500 acres in size.
Frederick County Planning
Minutes of April 18, 2012
Page 2846
-7—
Transportation components of the plan were next presented by Mr. Ruddy. Some of the
• key components of the text were access management; enhanced future road network; complete streets;
corridor design; and targeted locations for implementation, especially in the areas surrounding Millbrook
High School, Shenandoah University, and the future urban centers areas. Mr. Ruddy next spoke about the
Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities portion of the plan. He summarized the key
components of this section as the green infrastructure, the environmental corridors, the environment
management systems, potential historic districts and key preservation areas, public facilities as
community focal points, new school and park locations, and the airport and landfill support areas.
Mr. Ruddy next answered questions from the Commission members. There was some
discussion about hatching designations on a couple of the slides surrounding the airport, which made the
designation of the Airport Support Area a little unclear. A member of the Commission stated that it
appears the Airport Support Area was separated from the airport by an industrial area and Route 37. Mr.
Ruddy said the staff could enhance the hatching designations so it would clearly show there was no
disconnect in the Airport Support Area.
No other issues were raised by Commission members. The Planning Commission
believed the plan was ready to go forward to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates
• and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
•
Respectfully submitted,
04A, (kILLffil-I-C-
Jul M. Wilmot, Chairman
ric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2847
Minutes of April 18, 2012