Public Presentations by fionan

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 10

									At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Warren held in the Warren County Government Center Board Room on October 11, 2006. Present: Mark Bower, Chairman; David McDaniel, Vice-Chairman Harry Krum; Ron Mabry; Lorraine Smelser; also present Doug Stanley, Planning Director; Taryn Logan, Deputy Planning Director; Matt Wendling, Planner and Linda Neighbors, Secretary. None.

Absent: Call to Order:

Mr. Bower called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Stanley advised the Planning Commission that Brookfield Washington, LLC, had contacted his office and was requesting to defer authorization for advertisement on their requests, items V-B and V-C on the agenda. He said if the Planning Commission was in agreement, those items should be removed from the evening’s agenda. After brief discussion, Mr. Krum moved that the agenda be adopted as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. McDaniel and passed on the following vote: Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Mabry, Smelser Approval of the work session minutes of September 11, 2006 and September 12, 2006. Mr. McDaniel moved that the work session minutes of September 11, 2006 and September 12, 2006 be approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Krum and passed on the following vote: Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Mabry, Smelser Public Presentations: There were no public presentations.

1

Authorization for Advertisement: R2006-03-01 Larry L. Andrews Mr. Stanley introduced the request to amend the Warren County Zoning Map and rezone approximately nineteen and thirty-four hundredths (19.34) +/- acres from Agricultural (A) to Commercial (C). The property is located on Route 55 east (John Marshall Highway) a portion between Route 55 and Route 649 (Dismal Hollow Road) and a portion between Route 55 and Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks and is identified on tax map 31, as a portion of parcel 18. The property is currently undeveloped. He stated that the packets contained copies of the report from Andy Kassoff of EEE Consulting, the County’s third-party consultant regarding water issues. He said the report was suggesting several things regarding the proffers and water usage at the site and development of the property. Mr. Stanley said the packets also contained copies of a revised proffer statement which eliminated sales of diesel fuel to tractor-trailers. He said language had also been added regarding test wells. He said staff had not had the opportunity to discuss that with Mr. Kassoff but hoped to do so within the coming weeks. He said he had forwarded the comment letter from VDOT dated October 6, 2006 to the Commission members by e-mail and hard copies were available if needed. He said the letter provided follow-up comments to their letters dated April 5 th, June 27th, and September 13th. He said the applicant, his attorney, and his real estate agent had met with VDOT representatives to go over the major issues identified by VDOT and had essentially worked out an agreement and a path forward. He said one of those components was a revised traffic impact analysis which he understood had been authorized by the applicant and was in the process of completion at this time. Mr. Stanley stated that Mr. Andrews, the applicant, Mr. Athey, his attorney, and Mr. Maddox, the engineer for the proposed rezoning, were all present to address the Commission members and answer any questions. Mr. Athey updated the Commission members on his client’s meeting with VDOT. Using the conceptual map as a reference, Mr. Athey explained what changes had been made to accommodate VDOT’s requests regarding the entrances to the proposed development, the stoplight (which had already been proffered by the applicant), and the right of way (already dedicated) for the future widening of Route 55. He pointed out the locations (revised per VDOT request) of a previously dedicated site for a county compactor and commuter parking area. He said his client had also dedicated the necessary right of way needed for the relocation of the entrance to Dismal Hollow Road. He said VDOT was basically in agreement with what was being proposed but as a planning tool for the future, VDOT asked the

2

applicant to look at a couple of additional intersections with respect to additional commercial development coming in the future. Mr. Athey said in response to Mr. Mabry’s concern about the distance between the test wells, those distances have been amended from 50 and 150 feet to 150 and 350 feet which should provide adequate spacing between the wells to address that concern. He said while Mr. Maddox was present to address the engineering comments made, he said everyone agreed that in the final analysis that the project would require a FEMA flood map revision and that revision would need to be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He said any changes would go though the County approval process, the Health Department and DEQ as well. He said his client didn’t disagree with anything contained in the environmental report. He said in conclusion, Mr. Callow was preparing and would have the amended Traffic Impact Analysis available prior to the public hearing on this request. Mr. Bower said he was just trying to ascertain if the TIA would be complete and if all other issues with VDOT would be resolved within the next 30 days and before the Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Athey affirmed that basically all VDOT issues were resolved as a result of their meeting. He said the revised TIA would simply put everything on paper. Mr. Krum and Mr. Athey discussed what would happen with the road when the Dismal Hollow side of the property was developed. Mr. Athey confirmed that would fall under VDOT’s revenue sharing program for a 50-50 match for the road improvements when that property was developed. He said that was also included in the proffers. He said they did reserve the right to construct their entrance on that side of the road. Mr. Krum and Mr. Stanley discussed the 50-50 match under the revenue sharing program. Mr. Stanley confirmed that the money could be held until such time as VDOT was ready to proceed with their share of the road improvement. Mr. Athey read an excerpt from the applicant’s proffer statement relating to the road improvements at the entrance of Dismal Hollow Road. Mr. Mabry, for clarification, asked Mr. Athey if the minimum amount to be done would be the traffic light, dedication of right of way and road construction into the parcel on the Dismal Hollow side, including the turn lanes and widening out onto Route 55. Mr. Athey agreed that was correct. Mr. Mabry confirmed that the cul-desac on Dismal Hollow and the remaining connector piece to Route 55 would be

3

constructed as a revenue-sharing project in the future. Mr. Athey said that was also correct. Mr. Krum and Mr. Athey discussed the right of way that would be granted for the four-lane divided highway and that portion that went under the existing railroad overpass on Route 55. Mr. Maddox discussed his meeting with Jeff Lineberry and Bob Childress of VDOT. He confirmed that the Commission members had received a copy of VDOT’s most recent letter. He said they were basically in agreement with the land use phase. He said the implementation would be much more detailed once it was designed and put on paper for review. He said one of the main components was the expansion of the existing railroad bridge which would be necessitated by any expanding of Route 55 under the bridge. Mr. Maddox, Mr. Athey and the Commission members discussed the railroad and whether or not there were future plans for the overpass of the railroad. Mr. Athey said hopefully he had addressed their concerns relative to VDOT and it was his client’s desire to move the matter forward for a public hearing. Mr. McDaniel said his only concern was he had hoped to see the completed TIA prior to scheduling the public hearing. Mr. Athey said the Commission did have a TIA; one was supplied with the application. He said what VDOT was requesting was a revised traffic impact analysis that expands the scope well beyond this project. He said his client had agreed to do that because it would help other land use planning decisions (by VDOT) along that Route 55 corridor. He said so far as this particular project, the original TIA supplied with the application was sufficient. He said when they met with VDOT, it was expressed by VDOT that they wanted to look universally at the whole area so they agreed to do that. Mr. Maddox explained some of the things that the Commission would see in the expanded TIA. He said one of the things that would change was making it align with the submitted proffers. He said there were also other things mentioned by Mr. Athey beyond the scope of this particular project. Mrs. Smelser referred to a comment on the VDOT letter, stating that the remaining proposed entrances would need to meet sight distance requirements and would need to be designed in accordance with minimum standards. She asked Mr. Athey if their change to the one entrance took care of that statement in the letter.

4

Mr. Athey responded that he didn’t feel there were any remaining problems with the modifications that had been made. Mr. Mabry asked Mr. Athey if the existing entrance for the residential area would continue to serve only the residential area. Mr. Athey said that was correct. Mr. Mabry asked Mr. Athey if he and his client had an opportunity to review the report submitted by Mr. Kassoff of EEE Consulting regarding the water issues. Mr. Athey said he, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Maddox had all read Mr. Kassoff’s report. He said they didn’t disagree with the analysis at all. He said obviously this was a challenging site, both environmentally and topographically. He said most of the issues mentioned were final site plan issues that would have to be addressed by the applicant in their final site plan. Mr. Maddox agreed that the issues raised in the report would be covered either in the proffers or in the final site plan for the property. He said it was their intent to have as much information as they could available to EEE Consulting prior to the public hearing so they could respond. Mr. Stanley said he was sure that the Commission realized that before going out, drilling wells, preparing analyses, doing the engineering and spending huge sums of money, there needed to be some level of approval before incurring those expenses. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Athey if he had a comfort level of having the TIA done and having VDOT’s response to it prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Athey said absolutely. He said if that wasn’t the case, he was prepared to ask that the matter be tabled until those items were available. After continued discussion, Mr. Krum moved that the Planning Commission authorize the proposed rezoning application for advertisement for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mabry and passed on the following vote: Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Mabry, Smelser 2006-10-01 William and Sandra Long

Ms. Logan introduced the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit for a combination of a single-family dwelling and a commercial repair garage. She said the property was located at 4167 Rockland Road and was identified on tax map 6, as parcel 3C. She said the applicant was proposing to use the existing garage on his

5

property for a full-time auto repair garage. She said he was requesting operating hours Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She said Mr. Long had stated he would be the only employee with a possible need to hire a part-time employee in the future. Ms. Logan said the request had been sent to the Warren County Health Department and Virginia Department of Transportation for their review and comment. She said comments had not been received from the Health Department but VDOT had responded that the applicant does have some sight distance issues. She said the applicant was in the process of working with VDOT to address that issue. Ms. Logan said she would defer reading proposed conditions on the application until after the public hearing. She said she would be happy to answer any questions and the applicant, Mr. Long, was also present. She said she also wanted to mention a memorandum that she had given to the Commission members at the beginning of the meeting. She said Mr. Long’s property was adjacent to the Rockland Agricultural-Forestal District. She said one of the provisions of the district states that the District should be taken into consideration when considering proposed uses of property located near or adjacent to the District. Mr. Krum and Ms. Logan had a brief discussion about the Rockland AgriculturalForestal District. Mr. Bower said he would suspect the Planning Commission might be hearing from some the folks within that District when a public hearing was held on this request. Mr. Long stated that he had a history of auto repair work having owned the Auto Repair Clinic on Commerce Avenue for eleven years. He said he had taken pride in running a clean and neat business and planned on keeping the garage at his home in the same fashion. He said it was his plan to run the business as though it wasn’t there and with no exterior evidence of having a business there. He said it wouldn’t be a large operation and he didn’t plan on having any inoperable vehicles sitting around his house. He said he had talked with VDOT regarding the sight distance and a lot of that had already been cut back. He said VDOT planned on doing a speed survey since most of the roads in that vicinity already had reduced speed limits. He said the speed was not posted on that section of the road and after speaking with VDOT, they were in agreement the road deserves a new study. He said some of the traffic from Shenandoah Country Club had a tendency to speed along that section of road but most of the people who lived on the road drove around 40-45 m.p.h. Mr. Krum agreed that section of Rockland Road was prone to speeding cars and was potentially dangerous.

6

Mr. Bower agreed that if VDOT was willing to look at the road and perhaps reduce the speed limit it could be a win-win situation for Mr. Long. He said he would state again the importance of Mr. Long contacting his neighbors. He said he was sure some of the people in the area would come out for the public hearing. Mr. Bower and Mr. Long discussed the location of the garage on the property. Mr. Krum suggested putting up an 8-foot fence along the front of the property to shield it from view. Mr. Long said he could do that. He said he had recently planted a screen of Leyland Cypress across the front of the property. He said he planned on parking any vehicles behind the building (garage) so they would be screened from view. Mr. Bower noted that the Planning Commission had recently reviewed several requests in the agricultural district for this type of repair facility in conjunction with a person’s dwelling. He said the biggest concern from the neighbors seemed to be the accumulation of inoperable vehicles and debris. He said the County’s policing of that seemed to be better lately but not overall where it needed to be. Mr. Long said he certainly didn’t want vehicles sitting around his home. He said when he ran his business in Town; he prided himself getting the vehicles fixed and moving them off the lot. Ms. Logan said a limit of five (5) vehicles had been discussed with Mr. Long. Mr. Long said he enjoyed his home and he wouldn’t want to have a bunch of vehicles sitting around anyway. Mr. Long said it was his plan that his property would look the same a year from now, with the business in operation, as it did today. He said he didn’t want there to be external evidence of the garage. He said he didn’t plan on doing an extensive amount of work there. There being no further discussion, Mr. Mabry moved that the Planning Commission authorize the proposed conditional use permit request for advertisement for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Krum and passed on the following vote: Ayes: Bower, McDaniel, Krum, Mabry, Smelser

7

Commission Matters: Commission Members Mr. Krum said he would like to know what was going on with the Town and their latest policy regarding supplying water in the County. He said he couldn’t determine from reading the newspaper what was going on. He said he was wondering if Mr. Stanley could perhaps explain it. Mr. Stanley noted that copies of the Town’s proposed water policy had been included in the Commission’s packets. He said he had also attached a letter done some months back (to the Town) outlining in theory what the process had been in past years and for the most part mirrored what was done with the Blue Ridge Shadows project. He gave a brief background concerning the Board of Supervisors going to the Town Council with the project’s request for Town water and sewer. He said that process had worked well as he had highlighted in his June letter (to the Town). He said what he had received was the Town’s intended policy to consider annexation or boundary adjustment into the Town as part and parcel with the process. Mr. Krum said the Town was telling the County how to run. He said they were doing their normal thing they do to the County which is “to slap us”. He read excerpts from the Town’s policy “…such a request made prior to a rezoning action must be made prior to a rezoning by the County”. He said that was saying the County couldn’t do a rezoning without asking them first. He said he thought they ought to “stick it”. Mr. Bower said he appreciated Mr. Krum’s comments. He said however, he thought they, as Planning Commissioners, needed to be looking at the merits of the applications that came before them. He said he really didn’t think the Planning Commission needed to be involved in the politics of “Town v. County”. He said if the Planning Commission did their job correctly; it didn’t matter if the Town asked the County, or the County asked the Town, or whatever, the Town would still be able to deliberate based on what was presented to them, whether it was approved before they received it or not. He said it shouldn’t put the Town or the County in any less desirable position. He said the fact they wanted to talk about annexation, changing of Town/County boundaries, use of water and sewer, etc., was beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. He said he wasn’t sure any of this affected the Planning Commission in any significant way. Mr. Stanley said he did, during this period of transition, have Mr. Mitchell, the County’s interim counsel, look into the issue so far as current applications and how

8

to handle it. He said he should have a response back by the next meeting. He said basically the County was asking what they should or should not do during the process to make sure they were on good, sound legal footing. Mr. Stanley said just to update, the County had been contacted by Frederick County concerning their long-term water needs. He said they had also contacted Warren County in the past (in 2001) showing their interest in the main stem of the Shenandoah River. Mr. Krum said it looked to him as though the Town wanted to tell the County what it could and could not do. He said being subservient was a bad habit. Mr. Bower said the County had not adopted anything at this point and he would maintain his position that as Planning Commissioners, they should not be involved with it, one way or the other. There was continued period of discussion between the Commission Members and Mr. Stanley regarding the Town of Front Royal and their water policy. County Attorney: The County Attorney was not present for the meeting. Planning Director: Mr. Stanley noted that the Planning Commission had received copies of the completed Karst Study Report for the Route 340/522 corridor property. He said what the study showed was where the runoff water went from the paved properties on Fairground Road. He said there was no dye traced east of the railroad tracks. He said there was some runoff from the Kelley Industrial Park that traveled down near the Fishnet property. He said if there was a chemical spill at DuPont, there was an outline that would tell with some certainty where it would migrate to and who it could possibly impact. Mr. Stanley gave the Planning Commission an update on the Centex project. He said there had been a meeting with VDOT concerning the traffic impact analysis. He said they were putting things together and should be ready to resubmit their application within the next couple of weeks. Mr. Stanley reminded the Commission members of the upcoming Regional Growth meeting to be held at the Warren County Government Center on October 19 th. He said he would make sure copies of the materials were available for anyone could not attend. He said there would be people here from Prince William and Loudoun

9

Counties talking about growth issues, recommendations, etc. He said Fauquier and Rappahannock Counties would also be represented the meeting. Deputy Planning Director: Ms. Logan had nothing further to report. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

______________________________________ Chairman

10


								
To top