MINUTES OF THE STRASBURG PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 11 2006, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL.

Planning Commission members present:  Chairman Smith, and Commissioners Crisman, Elliott, Kepler, and Whittle.  Absent:  Commissioners Howard and Terndrup.  Others present:  Town Planner Amos and Council Member Carl Rinker

Cedar Valley Site Plan Review:

Chuck Maddox, PHR&A, representing the applicant:  Mr. Maddox said he was attending the meeting in place of Mr. Mislowsky.  He was there to discuss the decision of the Town Council and the shift back to Plan #2.  He presented a “reduced scale” rendition of their proposal.  He said the majority of the issues had centered on the townhouse portion of the development so what is being presented is just for the townhouses. He said there were two issues that need discussion before they can finalize the plan.  The first is that the Planning Commission requested the lots front on a Town street.  “Customarily the lots have been fronting on a parking court and that parking court would front on a Town street.  What you see is a plan where the lots actually front on a Town street and the parking court is included in the front yard of the lot.  The only question I have that I think needs some discussion is the coverage factor that’s included in Section 3-10 of the townhouse lots.”  He said he was talking about the maximum amount of the lot that could be covered, “and if we agree that is the house, then that shouldn’t be a problem, but if it included impervious areas like parking, there may be an issuer there.”  He said it would be in violation if the parking area is included in the coverage.  Chairman Smith said the open space requirement is 30%; Mr. Maddox said he knows that is the requirement for the entire project, but he is talking about the individual lot.  Planner Amos and Chairman Smith both did not think there was a requirement on this and so Mr. Maddox said it isn’t an issue then.  He continued by discussing the higher units which are traditionally the drive-in basement, garage type units.  He said these units that have a garage normally would access the street --- “any single family home with a garage, with a 25’ setback, would back out of their garage and into the street to turn.  This is a very low volume street, obviously it’s a fixed generation type street; it’s not a through street and we don’t feel there is any safety issue; there is a question and I think it refers to the subdivision ordinance about backing onto public streets and I just wanted to get that clear.”  Chairman Smith said the Ordinance Committee has been looking at this issue and quite a few single family houses are being built where people will back out onto a street.  He said he does not see a problem with that, personally, as it is an individual driveway where you have time to see traffic; Mr. Maddox said they don’t have a problem with this either

Mr. Maddox said their intent is to move quickly on the plans.  Commissioner Kepler asked if the lots were going all the way to the road and Mr. Maddox said they were and this is so they can technically meet the requirement of fronting on a public street.  Commissioner Kepler discussed some of the intersections on the plan and where they were located on other plans they had seen.  He said the only thing that is jumping out at him is on the lower corner where there is a radius on one side and a 90 degree angle on the other --- he feels this is awkward, but doesn’t have any suggestions.  Mr. Maddox and Mr. Kepler discussed some ideas on this. 

Commissioner Elliott asked if this plan contained fewer units than the last one proposed; Mr. Maddox said he is not sure of the number, but did think it was fewer.  He added Mr. Mislowsky had just prepared this today and they haven’t had a chance to discuss it thoroughly. (95 units shown on plan.)    

Chairman Smith said he knows they are trying to move quickly and was wondering when PHR&A will bring in a site plan.  Mr. Maddox said if they are certain they are in accordance with the ordinances, they will begin working on the site plan Monday (May 15) morning and that it will be done in phases, as approved by Council.

Council Member Rinker said the only question he has is if anybody compared it to master plan #2 and Mr. Maddox showed a large rendition of plan #2.  Mr. Rinker thinks this is much more pleasing to the eye and he likes the curvilinear design - it is going to be a much nicer layout and does not place them (townhouses) in a “row-house look.” He is not a fan of townhouses, but a good effort has been made by the applicant to improve the look and he commends them on this.  He said he does question the lots traversing across these private parking areas, but feels this can be taken care of with covenants and he doesn’t want it to be a Town issue. His main concern is the safety issue from the homeowners’ standpoint.  Mr. Maddox said traditionally the lots have to be extended, the owners have to pay taxes, but they have no rights on the property --- the homeowners association takes over this area.  The townhouse owner pays taxes on this, but they don’t have any rights on this.  Commissioner Kepler asked if there would be an ingress/egress easement on this to allow everyone to get access through the parcels and wouldn’t there be a line that would stop on the backside of the curb; Mr. Maddox agreed with these statements.    

Commissioner Kepler asked if they have any idea of how they will layout the sidewalks; he thinks the common sense place to put these would be in the public right-of-way.  Commissioner Kepler and Mr. Maddox discussed this and they are going to look more closely at the ordinance.  Mr. Maddox said sidewalks along the road usually work in this type of development.

Kenneth Williams, 273 Royal Avenue, Strasburg, VA:  “All I’ve got to say is I’m definitely against all these dag gone townhouses.  We’re getting saturated with them – everywhere you look there are townhouses going up and I just don’t think that we need all those.  Single family homes are fine; you can make a beautiful development of single family homes, but when you start putting all these townhouses up, it’s ridiculous.  All it is, it’s just a money factory, is what it amounts to; we all know that.”

Chairman Smith explained that the townhouses are a component of the Planned Development ordinance and the Town understands there will be townhouses in this mix of various types of houses.  Mr. Williams asked what the ratio of townhouses to single family is and Chairman Smith said it does meet the ratio.

North Street Review:

The applicant has asked that it be put on hold.  It will be put on the agenda to deny it until further information is received.

Madison Associates, LLC Development (commonly known as the Island Farm): 

Kevin Rose, attorney representing Madison Development:  Mr. Rose said he sent a letter to Town Manager Fauber explaining their opinion of the 90 rule is as fair as the Planning Commission voting on this issue.  He said he would like to note that at the last meeting there was a discussion as to whether this would be placed on the May agenda and the applicant is asking for it to be placed on the agenda so that a vote can be taken and then, if the vote is for disapproving, conditions or reasons for disapproval be attached and the item be moved on to the Town Council. Chairman Smith said after discussing this with Town Attorney Arthur, he (Mr. Arthur) came up with the same opinion as Mr. Rose in regards to proffers and so it is in the best interest of the Planning Commission to vote on this at the next voting session.

Mr. Clay Athey, land-use attorney for the applicant:  He said he was in attendance mainly to answer questions.  He thinks the Planning Commission has heard all the reasons why they feel this is a good thing for the community.  This is strictly an issue with the amount of amenities and the impact from the 180 homes. 

Kim Bishop 728 Crystal Lane, Strasburg, VA:  Mrs. Bishop said she wanted to ask two questions.  “First I wanted to know if it were possible to approve one part of the rezoning as in the changing it to agriculture and not to residential, or does it have to be rezoned all together as one big packet?”  Chairman Smith said that is a legal question, but he feels that because the proffers are part of the package, that the whole thing is an integral thing that can’t be separated unless the applicant wants to separate it.  Mrs. Bishop’s other question was, “In the comprehensive plan when you use the word conservation areas or conservation;…what exactly is the Planning Commission’s definition of conservation areas; what is actually meant.”  Chairman Smith said he helped to write the Comprehensive Plan and he has struggled with this because the ordinances don’t really have a conservation zoning, but he believes the agriculture zone comes closest to what he considers conservation.  To him, conservation would be no residential or very low impact residential.  Park land or open land would be his concept of what conservation land would be.

Mrs. Bishop continued by saying she did not have any problem with the amenities, but for the record read two portions from page 23 of the Comprehensive Plan.

            “The land area within the 100-year flood plain along the North Fork of the Shenandoah River and Cedar Creek has been designated as conservation.  Low-intensity uses such as agriculture, park, and recreational development should prevail within this defined area.  There are no other permitted uses within this designated area.”

            “Areas along the North Fork of Shenandoah River, Cedar Creek, Town Run, and other waterways are proposed for conservation uses.”

She also spoke about the map on page 25 of the Comprehensive Plan and read Goal I, Strategy E on page 1:

            “Preserve and protect natural areas such as waterways, wetlands, floodplains, woodlands, and parks.”  

And from Goal III, Strategy E., page 2:

            “Prohibit the construction of dwellings or other structures in those areas defined as flood plain.”

She concluded by saying she knows the Comprehensive Plan and ordinances sometimes are opposite of each other, the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be used and this document says this area should not be used for residential.

Carl Rinker, 74 Philips Court, Strasburg, VA:  Mr. Rinker said he would basically like to see the Town consult with the Army Corp of Engineers and ask for a map amendment.  He has been to many sites along this river and many others and has done flood certification surveys and when it comes to map amendments, when they brought in local individuals to testify to the height of the rivers, etc., the Corp was highly influenced.    He would like to have a FEMA map amendment and let them tell where the flood line is.  Many people have called him and he has heard testimony from many as to where the flood waters have been.  

Mr. Rinker said he is also concerned with traffic on Route 11 and also the road going into the development which is a north facing road and doesn’t get much sunlight.  He added there is an ordinance that says roads shall not exceed 8% and he knows VDOT has 10-12%, but the Town does not have to follow that.  The entire island is beautiful as it sits and he is sure the developer bought it with the intention of putting houses on it, but when he worked for Mr. Ramsey there was talk of a golf course on the property.  This would be a good recreational use for this.  He doesn’t think some of the area would be good for concession stands and ball fields, but really would like to have a map amendment done to see if it is the same, better, or worse than Dewberry and Davis have presented.  He feels there are a lot of issues and questions that haven’t been answered and he is still searching for answers and he isn’t sure the timing is right for this project.  In his opinion, the only one who can tell you how high an area will flood, is the Man upstairs and he couldn’t forgive himself if he were a part of something and a lot of folks were lost on that island due to flooding.

Kenneth Williams, 273 Royal Avenue, Strasburg, VA:  He said he was here in 1942 when the big flood hit and he saw the devastation it caused --- all the things it washed out and everything coming down the river.  As he has stated previously, he is mainly concerned about the river and what is happening to it.   He feels that little by little the river is being destroyed.  Everybody is destroying it, not just the builders.  “When you destroy the most precious natural resource we have in this Valley, you are destroying the people and the Valley.”  Where will the runoff from these houses go to?  It will eventually make it to the river.  He has seen the results of pollution in rivers in Pennsylvania and he doesn’t want this to happen to the Shenandoah.   You used to be able to fish, float, and even ice skate this river and now you can’t.  “Please, don’t destroy it any further; this is a chance to put a small dent in this and to stop a lot of it; it’s just a start, but you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Al Davis 180 Tyler Court, Strasburg, VA:  “I’ve been looking at the FEMA map of the site, as well as the 1:24000 scale USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) map of the same area.  I have a few observations on that:

The 100-year flood is assumed to mean that an area designated as a flood hazard area is susceptible to flooding once every hundred years. I think a better definition is that the area has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year --- 1% this year, 1% next year, 1% the year after that, and so forth.

Now, most of the Island Farm is shown on the FEMA map as a flood hazard area.  There are no reference points on the map – no contours, no bench marks, nothing except a line indicating the boundary of the flood hazard area.  The line appears to be a rounded-off representation of the 520-foot contour line on the USGS map.  But, the contour interval on that map is 20’, so even if it followed the contour line, could be off 10’ either way.  The legend on the FEMA map states that no base flood elevations were determined in the flood hazard area.  If they didn’t get any elevations, how did they know where to put the boundary?  What I’m suggesting is that as you look at this rezoning request, forget the FEMA map; it’s useless.  What I am suggesting is listen to the accounts of eye-witnesses – that’s a tremendous resource – there are a number of people here that were here when those floods occurred in the past.  Don’t just let them get away with coming in here and saying something and going away.  Ask the questions; pin them down; what did they see; when was it; plot the locations of their observations; that will give you a base of information that you don’t have now, I don’t think.  And that gets to the final considerations --- look what the long term effects construction of 180 residences in a stream valley that is subject to flooding.”

Bert Sobers, 1486 Sandy Hook Road, Strasburg, VA:  Mr. Sobers said his home and property was hit by the 1996 flood so he has some unfortunate experiences.  He is also a retired civil engineer, skilled in geology and hydrology.  When they built their home in the early 1990’s, he used the flood maps and what Mr. Davis said about the contours is correct.  He spoke with the FEMA people after the flood and they indicated two things:  one was they did use the contours rather than “experimental information” and secondly, they were going to update it in five or six years and he hasn’t seen it yet.  He raised his house and after doing analysis on his own, “we raised it another eight feet and basically put in a false basement.”  He showed a picture of his home at “full flood” and added the house sits on a piece of ground that is four feet above the worst case flood condition as stated by those maps.  He said the house was on a three foot crawl space and the picture shows the water went up three feet above that for a total of 10’; “in other words the FEMA map is out by 10’.”

Mr. Sobers also spoke about ponding areas where there is no horizontal flow; not much debris flow --- basically everything jams up and the water has no place to go so the flow is up and down.  He said this is different from channel flow.  Where the river actually flows, the heights are even higher.  His house was not only 10’ beyond the maps, “but whatever was close to the river, and we’re nearly a quarter of mile from the river, was many, many feet.”

The other point concerns discussion of what to do with the land if it is declared a flood area.  “There have been some discussions of playing fields and I don’t know if anybody here saw the ’96 flood, but there were entire trees --- and I’m talking trees that were 50, 60, 70 years old --- going down that river and striking the high water bridge; in fact they were worried they were going to lose the high water bridge.”  Debris was deposited on the land in huge amounts and some of his neighbors have still not cleaned this up because of the difficulty of removing that debris.  If you put a playing field there, he doesn’t think it is “a liking situation.”  He added you could putt around the fallen trees if it were a golf course, but somebody is going to have to go and clean it up!  He wouldn’t recommend it for playing fields, at least not where it is close to the river where the debris would be flowing.  In his area, the debris field came back approximately 400 yards.  He said the question had been asked as to what is conservation land --- “the flood maps are out of spec and even the FEMA people admit that.  When are they going to fix it?  I haven’t the foggiest, but I’ve been waiting.”   

Chairman Smith said this does need to be voted on at the next voting meeting and he is in favor of adding it to the regular agenda so the decision of the Planning Commission can be fully explained. 

Commissioner Kepler said he agrees with the inconsistencies of the flood plain maps; he has seen this in his work and has seen what water searching for a flat surface can do.  He has concerns with this and said you can do all the flood plain studies you want, but there is enough “flexibility in the numbers to make them justifiable in any way, shape, or form.  It really comes down to doing the floodplain study, along with getting data from the locals, such as was described.”  He wasn’t able to attend the Dewberry and Davis meeting so he doesn’t know how far they went with the study or how much eyewitness accounts was taken into account.  It is an area that is dynamic and we have no way of knowing what will happen in this area.  He thinks it would be irresponsible to put citizens in an area prone to flood.

Ricci Troxell, site plan: 

Chairman Smith said he doesn’t have any questions or problems with this site plan.

Commissioner Kepler apologized for not thinking of this earlier, but on the Island Farm, he wanted to know if any agency comments had been received.  Planner Amos said VDOT has not received enough information from the TIA and they are working with Mr. Maddox on getting this information and she is not sure what other comments have been received from other agencies.  Chairman Smith asked that comments be included with the Planning Commission packet for the next meeting.  Commissioner Kepler asked as a standard operating question, when comment sheets are sent to agencies, is there a time frame in the letter as to when comments should be received.  Planner Amos said this is correct.

Founder’s Landing, information item: 

Planner Amos said there are currently two commercial buildings at Founder’s Landing.  The property is fronted by a stone wall made from stone taken from the site.  The owners of the commercial buildings would like to take the rock wall down and replace it with a “fabricated rock wall” that includes a sign.  Sketches show how slats are put in the stone which will show what businesses occupy the buildings.  The letter says the signs are 12’ tall and lettering 9 ½” x 5’ wide. The materials to be used on the signage would match the signs on the buildings.  She said this needs to be reviewed for the Entrance Corridor Review.  Their second request is for a LED sign that has time and temperature and space for messages.  Planner Amos said currently the code calls for no intermittent signs without a special use permit.

Chairman Smith said he has a problem with the LED sign, but Commissioner Kepler said it will only be periodic business messages, but Mr. Smith still has a problem with it.  Chairman Smith says he wants to go and look at the site again on the stone wall; he might have a problem with the height, but does have serous problems with the LED sign on the building since this is the entrance corridor. 

Council Member Rinker asked what the sign height regulation is and Planner Amos said it is 15’.  Planner Amos said the proposed sign is 12’ plus an additional 6” cap.  Council Member Rinker said he thought this area was controlled by the developer and not the property owners and he feels the developer should be notified of this.  It is his understanding, having talked to the developer, there is a “riff” that exists between the tenants and the developer and he doesn’t want the Town to get involved in an “ongoing feud” about those rocks and he doesn’t know who actually controls the rocks.  He thinks legal data should be provided saying who has the right to move and change the rocks.

Planner Amos said that Paul Lewis owns this property and the stone wall is on part of his property and she agrees the Town should not get involved in any ongoing problems out there, but this is a property owner that has requested a review of a sign.  She added she has a call into Mr. Bob McCan who was the developer of the property, but has not heard back from him.  Council Member Rinker said he does not know if there was some sort of agreement that this wall could not be removed or not.  More information will be gotten on this issue and it will be discussed further at the next Worksession.

Being no further business, the Worksession adjourned at 8:37 p.m.