[00:00:02]
[I. Call to Order]
COMMISSION, UH, AN ORDER.[II. Roll Call – Determination of Quorum]
FIRST HAVE A ROLL CALL.PARDON? VICE CHAIRMAN MARSH NOUR PRESENT CHAIRMAN JONES HERE.
COMMISSIONER GORDON HERE, COMMISSIONER MERCHANT COMMISSIONER INGRAM HERE.
WE HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT ATTENDANCE.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE NEW COMMISSIONER JOSHUA INGRAM.
AND IF YOU MIGHT JUST GIVE US A FEW MINUTE BACKGROUND ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOUR INTERESTS MIGHT BE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
OF COURSE, MY NAME IS JOSH INGRAM.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE OF A FRONT ROW FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS.
UM, I HAVE A PASSION OF, OF, FOR A HISTORY IN PARTICULAR AND I CAME TO FRONT ROYAL, UH, AS A, YOU KNOW, IS, I GUESS YOU CAN CALL IT AN ESCAPEE FROM THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA, UH, BOOM, WHERE I'VE LIVED PRIOR TO, UH, PAST, UH, 12 YEARS ANYWAYS, UM, FRONT ROYAL HAS, YOU KNOW, CHECKS ALL THE BOXES FOR WHAT I WANT IN A TOWN.
I'M A BIG OUTDOOR OUTDOOR ENTHUSIAST.
AND OF COURSE, UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST, MY INTEREST IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN ABLE TO, UH, THROW MY NAME IN THE HAT FOR KEEPING THE, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN'S CHARMIN TACT AND HOPEFULLY, UH, PROMOTING, UH, WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY HERE IN TOWN FOR, FOR, UH, SMART GROWTH.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO, UH, WORKING FOR THE TOWN.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
[III. Approval of Minutes]
MINUTES FOR AUGUST 20, 19 2010, I'M SORRY, 2020, UH, COMMISSIONED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.UH, ARE THERE ANY, UH, SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE MINUTES OR WILL SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE MINUTES? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 20TH OF 2020.
UM, UH, I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE, HAVE THE POLL OF THAT COMMISSIONER GORDON.
COMMISSIONER MERCHANT COMMISSIONER INGRAM.
THAT IS APPROVED, UH, FEBRUARY 17TH COMMISSION FOR THE REGULAR MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.
I HAVE DONE, UM, DISTRIBUTED ALSO.
AND IF THERE'S, UH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ABOUT THAT? UM, OKAY.
WE APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF 17, FEBRUARY, 2021.
AND THE, UH, OUR REGULAR WORK SESSION MINUTES FROM THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17TH, 2021 IS OUR SECOND TO THAT SECOND.
COULD YOU POLL THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? AND WE DISCUSSED GUNS AT YOU? OKAY.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UH, UH, UH, MENTIONED REGARDING THE WORK SESSION MINUTES.
UM, AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION THERE ON THE BLIGHTED PROPERTIES AND SO FORTH.
AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A SENTENCE TO ADD TO THE MINUTES THAT, UH, UH, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING BLIGHTED PROPERTIES, I MADE A POINT THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE MINUTES THAT, UH, I EXPRESSED A CONCERN THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE, UH, HASTY IN ELIMINATING THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF FRONT ROYAL.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A SENTENCE TO ADD TO THE MINUTES THAT, UH, MRS. HER EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT, UH, TOO MUCH STANDARDIZATION COULD ELIMINATE SOME PROPERTIES THAT ADD TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF FRONT ROYAL AND A RECOMMENDED THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL EXPLORE ENTERPRISE ZONES AND OTHER CONCEPTS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED IN SOME OTHER PLACES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF BLIGHTED PROPERTIES.
WELL, I SAID THAT, UH, IN MANY SENTENCES, MANY MORE SENTENCES, UM, I DO RECALL SOME OF THOSE ISSUES BEING RAISED.
SO I'D SAY LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, VOTE ON THAT THE MINUTE THEY AMENDMENT
[00:05:02]
THAT'S POTTER.WAS THERE A SECOND, SECOND COMMISSIONER GORDON? YES.
WE HAVE THAT KIND OF ADDITION TO THE MINUTES FOR, UH, THAT WAS THE REGULAR MEETING WORK SESSION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT WAS VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT AND NOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MINUTES.
WE'VE AMENDED IT AFTER WE VOTED ON IT.
SO I THINK, I THINK THAT AS WE, WE APPROVED BOTH OF THEM THE REGULAR AND THEY WORK SESSION MINUTES AND THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT MR. MERCHANT MADE, UM, AND THE WHOLE MINUTE PACKAGE.
ONE MORE OF A COMMISSIONER GORDON, VICE CHAIRMAN MARSH NER.
COMMISSIONER MERCHANT COMMISSIONER INGRAM.
SO, UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS CITIZEN COMMENTS, OR THAT WOULD BE COMMENTS FROM THE CITIZENS ON ANY ISSUES, NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
SO THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE VIEWPOINTS OF ACT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BOTHERING SOMEONE, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
WAS THERE ANYONE, I WOULD SAY THERE ARE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS, SO I'VE, UM, I'D LIKE TO, UM, UM, UH, UH,
[V. Public Hearings]
OPEN THE FLOOR TO DISCUSSION OF A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, REZONING APPLICATION NUMBER F R R E Z O N TWO FOUR EIGHT EIGHT DASH TWO OH TWO, ONE SUBMITTED BY ONE 16 SOUTH STREET, LLC, REQUESTING AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL ZONING ORDINANCE TO RECLASSIFY WARREN COUNTY TAX MAP PARCELS NUMBER TWO OH SEVEN DASH SIX DASH TWO TWO AND TWO THREE TOTALING 0.45 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R THREE TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT C ONE.SO, UM, MR. WILSON, IF YOU HAVE SOME THINGS YOU'D LIKE TO, UH, UM, BRING OUT FOR THE, UM, FOR THE MS FOR THIS MEETING.
THANK YOU, MS. CHAIRMAN, UH, THIS APPLICATION, AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING ONE, THEY HAVE BEEN DULY ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.
UH, YOU'VE UH, GIVEN A GOOD SUMMARY OR ALREADY OF THE REZONING REQUEST OF THE REZONING.
UH, TWO PARCELS CONSISTING OF 0.4 OR FIVE ACRES FROM, FROM ITS CURRENT R THREE TO C ONE, WHICH WOULD BE A CONVENING OF BUSINESS DISTRICT REZONING.
UH, YOU CAN SEE IN THE VICINITY MAP, UH, WHERE THE TWO, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PARCELS JOINING, UH, THAT REPRESENT THE SITE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON PAGE TWO OF THE STAFF REPORT, UH, THESE, THIS PARCEL, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED R THREE, IS ACTUALLY BOUNDED BY AND WOULD BECOME PART OF, UH, A C1 DISTRICT, UH, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH STREET CORRIDOR IN TOWN.
UH, YOU HAVE IN YOUR APPLICATION, THE, UH, THE APP, THE APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT, A PLAT AND A CONCEPT PLAN, UH, THIS REZONING IS, IS GOING TO BE PART OF A, IF IT IS SUCCESSFUL, UH, AN EXPANSION OF THE SPLUNKERS SITE, UH, THEY THEY'VE, UH, BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS AND THEY'VE OUTGROWN THEIR BOUNDARIES AND THEY ARE, THEY ARE LOOKING, UH, THERE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA FOR EMPLOYEES, UH, ALSO TO PROVIDE, UH, FOR SOME ACCESSORY, UM, STORAGE ON THE PARCEL.
WHAT THEY'RE HOPING TO DO IS TO PROVIDE A BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW, UH, WHERE THE REARRANGEMENT OF THE, UH, THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES.
[00:10:01]
IS LOST THROUGH THAT WILL BE GAINED, UH, ON THE SITE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF PINE STREET, UH, THIS SITE HAS BEEN KNOWN, UH, TO BACK UP ACTUALLY INTO SOUTH STREET, UH, ON OCCASION.AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, A, A SAFE TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUE.
AND THAT, THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY BE IF NOT ELIMINATED, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, REDUCED, UH, BY THIS REZONING ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND THEREFORE, UH, OFFSITE ON ACROSS PINE STREET, WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW FOR MORE TRAFFIC TO GO THROUGH THE DRIVE-THROUGH AND PARKING IN GENERAL, WE'RE ROLLING.
UM, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS, UH, WE DO FIND IT, UH, CONSISTENT, UM, WITH THE ZONING PATTERN AND THE ZONING SCHEME, UH, OF THE AREA, UH, AND ALSO, UH, WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, WHICH DOES IN GENERAL SHOW THE SOUTH STREET AS, AS A CHORD OR, UH, FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE, THE TWO PARCELS ARE ACTUALLY BOUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY CURRENT C1 ZONING.
SO IT IS SIMPLY A, A CHANGING, A MINOR CHANGE OF THAT, OF THAT DISTRICT BOUNDARY IN STAFF'S OPINION, UH, YES, AN END CONCLUSION OF STAFF HAS, HAS REVIEWED THIS.
UM, WE DO THINK THAT THIS REZONING, WHAT DOES THIS A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS TO CONTINUE TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND ACTUALLY GIVE IT THE ABILITY, UH, TO GROW.
AND WE ALSO FIND, UM, OTHER PUBLIC BENEFIT, UH, THROUGH THAT GROWTH, UM, AND THE LOCAL TAX BASE, AND AS MENTIONED TO, TO TRY TO HELP ALLEVIATE IF NOT REMOVE A TRAY, A TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUE THAT OCCASIONALLY OCCURS ON, ON SOUTH STREET, SOUTH STREET.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THIS ZONING MAP CHANGE TO RECLASSIFY PARCELS 28, SEVEN DASH SIX, LOTS 22 AND 23 FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ARE THREE, TWO COMMUNITY DISTRICT C1 AS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION.
AND THERE ARE NO PROFFERS, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST.
UM, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND, UH, GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, UM, REZONING APPLICATION.
SO IF ANYONE IS INCLINED, THERE'S HOPE, HOPEFULLY THERE'S SOMETHING WHERE YOU SAID SIGN IN THERE.
MY NAME IS JOE CONNECTED WITH PROTESTING ASSOCIATES AND REPRESENTING, UH, UH, STEVE ANTON, ELLIE, UH, AND THE OWNERS OF THE SPELUNKERS, UM, THE PRESENTATION OF MR. WILSON'S PRESENTATION WAS PERFECT.
SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, SO WE'LL BE FREE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER FOR YOU, I GUESS IT WAS, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, UM, DO YOU SEE THIS, UM, ENHANCING THE, UH, CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OF THE HOUSE THAT'S THERE AND AS WELL AS STILL, UH, BE, UH, WILL STILL BE THERE? YES.
THEY'RE PLANNING ON, UH, UPDATING THAT HOUSE.
ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY'VE STARTED WORK ON IT ALREADY.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YEAH, WE'VE DONE SOME PAINTINGS
IT IS, IT WAS, UM, THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE LOOKING TO PUT A FOOD STORAGE, UH, BUILDING ON THE BACK OF THAT, UH, THE CURRENT BUILDING.
AND JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, UH, THE STATUS OF THAT BUILDING AS A RESIDENCE WAS, WAS DISCUSSED, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD NO LONGER SERVE AS A RESIDENCE AND IT WOULD BE USED OR CLASSIFIED AS A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE, TO THE COMMERCIAL USE BEING THE RESTAURANT.
SO WE WILL NOT, NO LONGER BE, UM, UTILIZED AS A RESIDENCE, BUT AS ACCESSORY STORAGE AND OTHER PURPOSES OF THE RESTAURANT.
AND I HAVE OBSERVED THE BACKUPS ON SOUTH STREET AND MYSELF.
SO I KNOW THAT HAS A PROBLEM IN THE PAST THAT MR. CHAIRMAN, THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT'S SUBMITTED IS THIS,
[00:15:02]
W ARE WE VOTING ON A CONCEPT PLAN TONIGHT AS WELL? OR WILL THAT COME BACK FOR A SECOND REVIEW? I DON'T KNOW.THIS IS, THIS IS SIMPLY FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES FOR THE RESIGNING OR REQUEST TO, TO SHOW THE PURPOSES FOR, FOR WHICH THE REZONINGS BEING REQUESTED.
I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT ON THE CONCEPT PLAN THEN, UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S NOT BEING APPROVED TONIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SIDEWALK COME OUT TO PINE STREET AND TO FACILITATE PEDESTRIANS GOING FROM THE NEW PARKING LOT, UH, OVER TO THE RESTAURANT, JUST SO THEY'RE NOT WALKING IN THE DRIVE AISLE, BUT IT'S GOOD THAT I'M OKAY.
IS, IS THE DIRECTIONALITY OF PINE STREET GOING TO CHANGE? NO, THERE'S, THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGES, UH, TO PINE STREET.
AND JUST ELABORATE IF, IF THE REZONING IS, IS SUCCESSFUL, THEN THERE WILL BE A SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO APPROVE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE AND THE CONCEPT PLAN AND, AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS, YOU KNOW, WELCOMES ANY, THIS, IT WOULD NOT BE A MAJOR SITE PLAN.
IT WOULD NOT COME BACK TO THIS BODY, BUT, BUT STAFF INVITES ANY COMMENTS THE COMMISSION MAY WANT TO MAKE CURRENTLY PINE STREET IS ONE WAY COMING TOWARDS SOUTH STREET UP TO A CERTAIN POINT.
AND WHAT IS THE POINT WHERE IT BECOMES TWO WAY? IT'S RIGHT BEYOND THIS.
YEAH, IT'S ALMOST RIGHT THERE AT, AT, AT THE REAR PROPERTY ON IT, RIGHT THERE AT THE END OF YOUR PROPERTY LINE AT THE NORTH END OF YOUR PROPERTY LINE.
SO THEN PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND FORTH.
WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT IS THAT THIS WOULD PREDOMINANTLY BE EMPLOYEE PARKING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS A RESTAURANT, THEY WANT TO TRY TO PRESERVE, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING THERE ON SITE AS, AS CLOSE TO THE RESTAURANT AS POSSIBLE.
SO THAT WILL HELP REDUCE THE FREQUENCY OF PEDESTRIANS GOING BACK AND FORTH ACROSS PINE STREET, WHICH IS, WHICH IS NOT A VERY HEAVILY TRAVELED STREET, BUT, BUT NONETHELESS, UH, WITH IT BEING, UH, USED PRINCIPALLY FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING THAT WILL REDUCE THE PEDESTRIAN TRIPS BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THAT STREET.
BECAUSE I WAS, I WAS THERE DRIVING AROUND, LOOKING AT THE SITE AND I HAD TO GO ALL THE WAY TO ROYAL AVENUE AND MAKE A RIGHT TURN ON ANOTHER STREET IN ORDER TO COME DOWN PINE OR TO SEE THE SITE.
UH, SO I'M NOT, CAUSE I FIRST TRIED TO GO FROM SOUTH STREET AND I'M NOT SURE I COULD GET TO IT.
I THOUGHT THAT A ONE WAY HAD, UH, HAD DONE AT SOME POINT IT CHANGED.
AT ONE POINT IT DOES CHANGE TO IT TO A ONE-WAY BEGINNING OF YOUR PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE END PROPERTY LINE THOUGH.
IT'S AFTER THIS REAR IT'S AFTER THE REAR ENTRANCE FOR OF THE EXISTING SPLUNKERS RESTAURANT, RIGHT.
UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH FARTHER IT GOES TO ONE WAY.
RIGHT? WELL, YOU JUST WANT, THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF CAN DRIVE TO IT FROM SPELUNKERS AND THEN ANYBODY CAN DRIVE TO THAT PARKING LOT FROM SPLUNKERS THAT THE ONE WAY DOESN'T END AT THE BACK OF SPELUNKERS THAT IT DOES CONTINUE TO THE END OF THE NEW PROPERTY.
STEVE, YOU HAVE AN IDEA WHEN, WHERE THAT YEAH.
THE, UH, STARS FROM SOUTH STREET AND THEN COMES TO THE BACK PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE SHOWING THE ENTRANCE TO THE, TO THE PARKING YOU DRIVE, THAT'S THE CONCEPT PLAN.
SO THE ONE WAY ISN'T GOING TO MATTER, I CAN ALSO COME FROM SOUTH STREET DOWN UNTIL YOU GET PAST.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF THAT REAL NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF COORDINATION, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT A TWO WAY PART OF PINE STREET GOES FAR ENOUGH TO YES.
DARREN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, WE'D HAVE TO MEET ALL THE TOWN REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
UM, MR. CHAIR, UM, UH, I'LL DIRECT US TO THE DIRECTOR.
UM, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY? YOU SAID THE SITE PLAN WILL NOT BE COMING BACK TO THIS BODY FOR REVIEW.
IT WAS NOT A BIT, THERE'LL BE A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND THIS WILL BE, BE CLASSIFIED AS A MONITOR SITE PLAN
[00:20:01]
AS A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.THIS WILL NOT BE CLASSIFIED THAT THE CHANGE THAT THE PARKING WOULD WOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT APPROVING AS COMMISSIONER GORDON POINTED OUT THE, UH, CONCEPT PLAN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE OWNER AND DESIGNER AWARE THAT, UH, THE NEED FOR CURB AND GUTTER AND ASPHALT ON THE PARKING LOT, I WAS NOT SHOWING HIM THE LIGHTING, UH, W WE'LL PROBABLY NEED AT SOME POINT THE DARK SKY, UH, CALCULATIONS, I ASSUME THERE WILL BE LIGHTING ON THE PARKING LOT, CORRECT.
IT'LL HAVE TO MEET THE, THE TOWN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH, UH, IS NORMALLY A SITE SCHEMATIC.
THE, THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD COMMENT ON WOULD BE THE 12 FOOT ALLEY TO THE WEST.
UH, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOW THE PARKING LOT ENDING PARALLEL WITH THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE MAY HAVE TO PUT A FENCE OR SOMETHING UP THERE TO PREVENT, UH, TRAFFIC FROM SPILLING OUT ON TO THAT 12 FOOT ALLY TO THE WEST WOULD BE JUST ONE COMMENT SINCE WE WON'T BE SEEING THE SITE PLAN.
ACTUALLY, I HAVE ONE QUESTION MYSELF, SIR.
UM, THE REAR EXIT RIGHT HERE, IT'S SHOWING TWO, TWO WAY TRAFFIC, UH, THOUGHT I READ WHERE THE REAR INCHES FOR, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE REAR ENTRANCE IS, IS EXIT EXIT ONLY.
UH, I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THIS, UH, ENTRY YOUR NEXT EXIT AIR EXECUTORS, IF IT'S GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC ON PINE STREET, BECAUSE IF PAM STREET IS MAINTAINING ITS DIRECTION, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS TRULY IN AND OUT OR IF IT'S JUST AN EXIT.
THE, THE EXIT, THE EXIT AND THE REAR IS, IS THE ENTRANCE OFF OF 55 IS GOING TO GO TO ONE WAY AND THAT'S GOING TO FLOW THROUGH THE SITE.
SO, SO VEHICLES GOING THROUGH THE DRIVE-THROUGH WOULD COME OUT THE OTHER EXIT THE ONE WAY OUT OF, UH, OUT ON 55 AS WELL.
UM, AND THEN PARKING WITHIN THE SITE, UH, WOULD HAVE TO EXIT THAT PINE STREET OUT THAT BACKSIDE.
SO, UM, PINE STREET IS TWO WAYS TO WHERE THEY CAN SWING INTO THAT REAR ENTRANCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
AND I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES NOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? DON'T HEAR ANY SOMEONE I CAME MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO REZONE THE 0.45 ACRE SITE TAX PARCELS, 28, SEVEN DASH SIX DASH 22 AND 23 IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R THREE TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS, DISTRICT C1.
IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED.
AND SECOND, UM, ANY OTHER, UH, ANY OTHER LAST COMMENTS, PARTNERS POTTER? COULD YOU, UM, POLL THE, UH, COMMISSION COMMISSIONER INGRAM? YES.
UH, THE, UH, THE NEXT, UH, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS, UM, ZONING ORDINANCE, TEXT AMENDMENT NUMBER F R Z O R A M 25, 19 DASH 2021, UH, INITIATED BY RESOLUTION OF FRONT ROYAL TOWN COUNCIL.
THE PURPOSES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ARE TO CHANGE THE USE REGULATIONS OF THE SEAT TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT PERTAINING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITTING OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMITTING OF APARTMENTS BY TOWN COUNCIL.
[00:25:02]
I WOULD DO.UM, MR. WILSON, WOULD YOU GIVE US, UM, UM, UP YES, SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, THIS IS A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT, THAT AS YOU CORRECTLY, SAY IT WAS INITIATED BY RESOLUTION OF THE FRONT ROLL TOWN COUNCIL ON, UH, FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.
I HAD, UH, REPORTED TO THE COUNCIL AT A, AT A PREVIOUS WORK SESSION, UH, LATE LAST YEAR THAT I HAD RECEIVED SEVERAL INQUIRIES, UH, FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, DEVELOPERS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN DOING, UM, APARTMENTS OR APARTMENT USE ON LOOKING AT BUILDINGS THAT WERE AVAILABLE, UH, PRINCIPALLY ON EAST MAIN STREET AND ALSO BUILDINGS THAT WERE LOCATED ON, ON CHESTER STREET.
UH, THE ONES THAT I'VE RECEIVED, UH, MOST INQUIRY ON, UH, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, UM, UNDER THE REGULATIONS ON APARTMENTS, UH, THESE DEVELOPMENTS COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD AS, AS WAS HOPED FOR BY THE APPLICANTS.
UH, WHAT WE DO HAVE IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IS THAT APARTMENTS ARE PERMITTED AND SEVERAL OTHER DISTRICTS.
IN ADDITION TO THE C2 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY PERMITTED IN THE R THREE, THE P AND D UH, THE C1 AND THE MCD ZONING DISTRICTS AND ALL OF THESE DISTRICTS, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BASIC REGULATIONS OF EACH PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
AND WE HAVE A SET OF, AS WE HAVE FOR A NUMBER OF USES, UH, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO VARIOUS USES WITH APARTMENTS BEING, UH, ONE OF THEM.
AND SO IN ADDITION TO THE, THE PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, ALL APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT HAVE TO APPLY OR HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE, THOSE SUPPLEMENT, UH, REGULATIONS.
AND IT WAS WITH THOSE, UH, THOSE SUPPLEMENT REGULATIONS AS FOUND IN THE ORDINANCES WHERE THE DIFFICULTY WAS, UH, QUITE FRANKLY, UH, PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONE THAT WAS PROBABLY MOST PREDOMINANT WAS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BECAUSE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR APARTMENT YOU STARTS OFF AT, AT 10,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IN A DOWNTOWN AREA AND IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, 10, 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO A PRETTY GOOD, PRETTY GOOD SIZE LOT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE, UH, THE PROBLEMS THAT, UH, THE, THE APPLICANTS ENCOUNTERED MOST.
SO AFTER DISCUSSING, UM, THE ISSUE WITH, WITH COUNCIL, THEY, THEY WANTED TO, UM, THEY DID WANT TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE, UH, APARTMENT USE OR SOME APARTMENT LIVING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
IT'S BEEN NOTED THAT, UH, IN TERMS OF SUCCESSFUL, UH, REVITALIZATION OF DOWNTOWN HAVING PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DOWNTOWN IS, IS, IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF, OF SUCCESSFUL DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.
UM, ACTUALLY THE, THE C2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS, UH, THEMSELVES, UH, SPEAK TO THE, UH, AND, AND ENCOURAGE, UM, RESIDENTIAL, UH, DENSITIES, UH, IN, AS IT STATES, UH, RIGHT FROM OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OR, OR I'M SORRY, IN, IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, IN ADDITION, CERTAIN HIGH DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL USES WHOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA WOULD TEND TO STRENGTHEN THE RETAIL CORE SHALL BE PERMITTED.
AND THAT'S ALL PART OF WHAT I JUST SAID IN THE STATEMENT THAT HAVING PEOPLE LIVE IN THE NEAR THE DOWNTOWN IS A, IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT.
SO WHAT THE, WHAT THE COUNCIL IS PROPOSING IS THAT THE C2 DISTRICT, UM, NO CHANGES TO THE, TO, UH, THOSE JUST THE REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF APARTMENTS, BUT IT WOULD NOT MAKE APARTMENTS AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO THE LIST OF SUPPLEMENT REGULATIONS AS FOUND IN SECTION ONE 13 OF, UH, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND I BELIEVE I PROVIDED A COPY OF THOSE, UH, FOR YOU IN THEIR, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, THAT THAT'S PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
UH, NOW WHILE APARTMENTS WOULD NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO THOSE, UH, I THINK COUNCIL WOULD STILL TRY TO USE THOSE AS A GUIDELINE IN EVALUATING, UH, UH, APARTMENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THE APARTMENTS ARE PERMITTED BY, BY SPECIAL, BY SPECIAL USE DEPARTMENT.
SO THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS OR ANY OF THESE, INSTEAD OF THESE BEING MANDATORY, SHOULD THEY SEE THE NEED? THEY COULD ACTUALLY IMPOSE THEM AS CONDITIONS.
ONE OF WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO WAS TO NO LONGER MAKE THEM MANDATORY SO
[00:30:01]
THAT THEY, THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING A PROHIBITING EFFECT.SO AMY, WHY WE WERE AT IT, UM, JUST, JUST TO GO OVER, UM, SOME OF THE SECTIONS, UM, YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE, UM, THAT, THAT DOES TALK ABOUT IT, UH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND IT, AND IT DOES REMOVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, APARTMENTS.
UM, THE, THE OTHER THING I FOUND INTERESTING IS UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION WAS THE CONVERT.
THE STATEMENT OF USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT, WAS THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND OR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES INTO BUILDINGS WITH A GREATER NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, BUT IT DID NOT PLACE ANY LIMIT ON THAT.
AND I THOUGHT A LIMIT WAS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE, UH, IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, SEEING HOW APARTMENT USE IN SOME OTHER MULTIFAMILY OR PERMITTED BY, BY SPECIAL PERMIT.
UH, SO THE COUNCIL AGREED AND PART OF THIS WAS TO PUT A LIMIT ON THE, ON THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, MULTI-FAMILY PERMITTING ADMINISTRATIVELY, UH, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT UNITS.
SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD EXCEED EIGHT, EIGHT UNITS, AND THAT'S ONLY IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, UH, WOULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
AND I THINK THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE IT, IT DOES ACTUALLY NOW ESTABLISH A NUMBER, UH, OR BY WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE BREAK BETWEEN, UH, YOU KNOW, AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF INCREASING THE NUMBER AND WHERE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UH, UH, WOULD TAKE PLACE.
AND SO THAT, THAT NUMBER HAS BEEN SET BY EIGHT, UH, LOOKING AT AT THIS, BUT, BUT THE, BUT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO NO LONGER MAKE, UH, SECTION ONE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS TO APARTMENTS, UH, AUTOMATICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE C2 DISTRICT, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE, UH, AUTOMATICALLY MANDATORY.
I STILL FEEL THAT THAT COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS, AS COMMISSION WITH ANY APPLICATION WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO USE THEM AS A GUIDE AND EVALUATING ANY PROPOSAL THAT MAY COME BEFORE YOU.
I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
UM, W UH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND OPEN, UM, UH, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, OR ZONING ORDINANCE, TEXT AMENDMENT F R Z O R A M 25, 19 DASH 2021.
AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO, TO, UM, TO CAULK TO TALK, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND, UM, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WELL, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO GET MORE APARTMENTS.
I THINK THAT HELPS TO REVISIT FIND DOWNTOWN.
SO IT SEEMED TO BE HEADED IN DEFINITELY THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR.
UM, MR. WILSON, HAS THE TENANT COUNCIL REVIEWED THE COMMENTS THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US? UH, HAVE THEY REVIEWED THE STAFF REPORT? YEAH, UH, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
I MEAN, IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE COUNCILMEN HAVE EVER REVIEWED, EVER REVIEWED IT.
DO YOU THINK THESE CHANGES FULFILL THE TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY THE EIGHTH? YES.
UM, PART OF THE UNDER SECTION ONE UNDER THE, UM, RESIDENTIAL BUY, RIGHT? THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT YOU WANT IT TO INCLUDE UP TO EIGHT, UH, YOU ALSO LIVES SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, UM, WERE TOWNHOUSES CONSIDERED FOR THE C2 DISTRICT TO HELP WITH APARTMENTS FRIDAY REASON WHY THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED.
UH, I, I, I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT WHY TOWNHOMES AREN'T INCLUDED.
I MEAN, THE, THESE, UH, WHAT YOU SEE HERE ARE THE ONLY LISTS ARE THE ONLY LISTED RESIDENTIAL USES, UH, BY RIGHT OR SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY.
AND THEN THE PROVISION, WHICH IS BEING AMENDED THAT PROVIDED, IF YOU ALREADY HAD AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL, YOU COULD ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS IF YOU ALREADY HAD SUCH A BUILDING, BUT IT DIDN'T PLACE ANY LIMIT ON THAT.
AND I, I BROUGHT THAT TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION TO, TO MAKE, UH, MAKE IT A CLEAN BREAK.
[00:35:01]
REVIEW AND THEN A, A SUCH AS APARTMENTS OR OTHER MULTIFAMILY.SO TOWNHOUSES WOULD STILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE C2 UNDER THIS REVISION, CORRECT? UM, I WOULD SAY THAT'S IF, CAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THAT TOWNHOMES ARE AN ACTUAL LISTED USE, UH, IN, IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND SINCE IF THERE ARE LISTED, DEFINED USE, THEN THAT'S A USE CATEGORY AND IF IT'S NOT THERE, THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
UM, THE, THE SPECIAL PERMIT REVIEW, COULD YOU QUICKLY GO OVER THAT FOR MY BENEFIT, SINCE I'M A LITTLE SLOW ON THAT AREA, UM, SPECIAL USE PERMITS, UM, OR SPECIAL USES ARE USES THAT, UH, MUST BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS, UH, OF REVIEW BY THIS BODY FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY AND THE GOVERNING BODY, UH, RESERVES THE RIGHT INTO ITSELF TO BE THE APPROVING AUTHORITY.
IF THE APPROVING AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE, BEING THE TOWN COUNCIL FINDS THAT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND FINDS NO ADVERSE IMPACTS OR EFFECTS, UH, FROM THE PROPOSED USE AS PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION.
THEN IT'S, IT'S COMMON TO HAVE THE APPLICATION, UH, APPROVED AS PRESENTED NOW IF DURING THE DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL OR RECOMMENDATION BY THIS BODY, OR BY CUT BY PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THERE ARE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED USE OR DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, UH, THIS BODY CAN RECOMMEND, AND THE GOVERNING BODY CAN IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE USE.
THEY ALSO, YOU AND THE BOARD AND THE COUNCIL ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MODIFY THE PROPOSAL IN ORDER TO MITIGATE OR ELIMINATE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS.
SO WHERE THERE ARE IMPACTS DUE TO THAT ARE IDENTIFIED NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT CAN BE EITHER REMOVED OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALLEVIATED THROUGH CONDITION.
IT WOULD BE THROUGH AN APPROVAL WITH THE IMPOSING OF CONDITIONS TO REMOVE THAT IF THEY REVIEW AN APPLICATION AND THEY DO ALSO FIND, SAY A NEGATIVE IMPACTS, AND THEY ALSO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NEITHER THROUGH MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION, NOR THROUGH THE IMPOSING OF ANY REASONABLE CONDITIONS THAT THOSE NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED THAT'S WHEN A GOVERNING BODY WOULD THEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY DENY THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
THAT COULD NEITHER BE, UM, REMOVED THROUGH A, A REDESIGN OF THE SITE OR THE PROPOSAL OR THROUGH THE IMPOSING OF CONDITIONS.
SO THAT'S USUALLY THE PROGRESS IS EITHER A, A, A APPROVED AS PRESENTED WHERE EVERYTHING IS FOUND COMPLIANT.
IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH IMPOSING OF CONDITIONS, THEN REASONABLE CONDITIONS, UH, CAN BE IMPOSED.
UH, BUT WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT NEGATIVE IMPACTS ARE PRESENT, THAT CAN NOT BE THROUGH CONDITIONS.
THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE YOU MAY SEE A, A DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION, AND THAT WOULD WORK WELL FOR EXISTING HOUSES TO PUT APARTMENTS IN THAT.
WHAT ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, NORMALLY AND A NEW SITE, UM, THE DEVELOPER OR THE ENGINEER DOING THE SITE PLAN HAS A LIST OF REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY INCORPORATE INTO THE SITE PLAN.
AND WE'RE BASICALLY IN THE C2 DISTRICT REMOVING THAT, THAT LIST OF, OF ITEMS THAT WE WANT ON THERE.
HOW ARE THEY TO KNOW WHAT, HOW TO DEVELOP THE SITE LIKE FOR CURB AND GUTTER OR ASPHALT PARKING OR STORM DRAINAGE OR SO FORTH? HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK? WELL, I MEAN, NOT, NOT ALL OF THE REGULATIONS, ARE THERE STILL BE THINGS, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH STORM WATER AND, AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER CHAPTERS OF THE CODE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE C2 DISTRICT ITSELF.
UH, AND WHILE THE, THE REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION ONE 13 WOULD NOT BE MANDATORY CONSULTATION WITH STAFF.
I, I WOULD ADVISE THAT THEY TRIED TO FOLLOW THAT AS A GUIDE, UH, IN, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN FOR, FOR THEIR PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND IF THEY SAY NO, THEN, THEN WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO DO
[00:40:01]
THAT.UH, WE CANNOT IMPOSE IF THEY SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, UH, I HAVE TO DEEM IT COMPLETE OR, OR CORRECT, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE.
UH, BUT THAT DOES NOT REMOVE THE DISCRETION AND LATITUDE FROM THIS BODY TO RECOMMEND CHANGES WHERE THEY SEE IT NECESSARY, AS WELL AS THE GOVERNING BODY TO IMPOSE CHANGES WHERE THEY, WHERE THEY FIND IT NECESSARY.
UH, I DO HAVE JUST HAVE A COMMENT TO COMMISSIONERS.
UH, THE, THE C TWO DISTRICT IS A RATHER DIVERSE AND LARGE DISTRICT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO ON MAIN STREET AND CHESTER STREET.
I REALLY DO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A VERY TIGHT, HIGH DENSITY ZONE, AND WE CERTAINLY NEED SOME FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT APARTMENTS AND GETTING PEOPLE DOWNTOWN, BUT THE DISTRICT ACTUALLY RUNS FROM JACKSON STREET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE POST OFFICE, AND THEN OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF ROYAL AVENUE TO THE COMMERCE AVENUE.
SO BY PULLING THE SAFETY OF THESE REGULATIONS OFF, WE'RE GETTING OUT IN MY OPINION, GETTING OUTSIDE OF THE INTENT, WHICH IS MAIN STREET AND CHESTER STREET.
AND, AND THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME ON THIS IS, IS TAKING THOSE REQUIREMENTS OFF EVERYTHING JUST TO MAKE MAIN STREET AND CHESTER STREET WORK.
UM, CAUSE ACTUALLY ONE OF MY COMMENTS IN THE UPCOMING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW IS TO REALLY LOOK AT CONNECTING OUR
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME TO DO THAT.
NOW WE ALSO HAVE OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUE OF NO PARKING ON MAIN STREET AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS DOWNTOWN.
NOW AT 10, I ASSUME THOSE REGULATIONS ARE STILL IN EFFECT, UH, AS FAR AS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND SO FORTH.
SO I JUST, I JUST HAVE A REAL CONCERN ON OPENING US UP TO THE ENTIRE DISTRICT AND NOT JUST MAIN STREET AND CHESTER STREET.
WOULD THERE BE SOME WAY TO WRITE IN A LIMITATION THAT COULD REASSURE YOU, WOULD THERE BE SOME WAY TO WRITE IN A LIMITATION THAT WOULD REASSURE YOU? NORMALLY WE, IN THIS TYPE OF PROCESS, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A WORK SESSION PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING WHERE WE COULD DISCUSS THIS VERY ISSUE, BUT FOR SOME REASON WE'VE ABANDONED WORK SESSIONS PRIOR TO GOING TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE IT AT THIS POINT.
UH, NORMALLY WE WOULD WORK OUT ALL OF THE LANGUAGE AND A WORK SESSION AND THEN PRESENT THAT BACK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO COUNCIL.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ON WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS.
WELL, DON'T, WE HAVE THE OPTION OF TABLING THIS TODAY AND BRINGING IT UP AT A WORK SESSION.
DON'T WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE HAVE THE OPTION OF TABLING IT TODAY SO THAT WE COULD BRING IT UP AT A WORK SESSION THAT, THAT MIGHT ALLOW THE ANSWERING OF THE QUESTIONS AND THE CONCERNS.
WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION SO MOVED? OKAY.
SO IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE MS. WILSON THAT IS THE INTENTION CORRECT? TO FOCUS ON CHESTER AND MAIN STREETS FOR WHAT THERE, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED TO MR. COOK THERE, COMMISSIONER MERCHANT'S POINT.
UH, IT DOES SEEM RATHER BROAD.
SO IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE INTENT.
AND I, AND I CAN STATE THAT THE REQUESTS THAT I HAVE RECEIVED HAVE BEEN FOUR PROPERTIES, UH, BUT THAT AS I PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT ACTUALLY DO, UH, UH, FRONT AND OCCUR ON EAST MAIN AND CHESTER STREET, AND THAT'S ONE WAY IT COULD BE WORDED INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.
IT COULD, AN OPTION WOULD BE THAT THAT SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY FOR PROPERTIES IN THE C TWO DISTRICT, WHICH FRONT ON EAST MAIN OR CHESTER STREET.
CAN WE MAKE THAT AS A MOTION, AS A PART OF THIS IT'S WHATEVER EMOTIONS THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FREE TO MAKE, I THINK, A WORK SESSIONS, A BETTER IDEA.
[00:45:03]
OKAY.UM, UM, I'M HEARING THAT, UH, MAYBE A WORK SESSION IS BETTER.
GESTURE STREET GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS RESTRICTION AS WELL AS MAIN STREET THAT WE WANT TO GO LAST NAME USE MAY STILL, WE WANT TO DO ON THAT.
SO AGAIN, I JUST HAVE A LOT IN MY HEAD.
I CAN'T QUITE GET A HANDLE AROUND EXACTLY WHAT GOES ON.
I DON'T WANT TO DISAPPOINT COUNCIL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SOMETHING THAT COULD COME BACK AND HAUNT THEM AT A LATER TIME.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY A COMMENT ALSO IN THE, IN THE DOWNTOWN FRONT ROLL AREA, PART OF THE PARKING EXEMPTION ALSO APPLIES TO THAT PORTION OF JACKSON BETWEEN SOUTH ROW AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET.
SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING ELSE TO KEEP IN MIND.
WELL, UM, I, I THINK I HEAR A CONSENSUS TO, UH, TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE CAN GET A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTUAL AREA TOO, FOR WHICH THIS WOULD APPLY.
SOMEBODY LIKED THAT, MOVE THAT.
WHEN WOULD WE MEET, IF WE TAPE SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE, A WORK SESSION, HOPEFULLY IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.
ABOUT TWO WEEKS
YEAH, ME IT'S EASTER WEEK, RIGHT? THAT'LL BE THE WEDNESDAY OF EASTER WEEK.
UM, ONE FURTHER QUESTION, UH, OF THE DIRECTOR.
NOW, IF, IF WE MODIFIED, UH, MR. WILSON, THE, UH, UH, INFORMATION THAT WE COVERED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, WOULD WE HAVE TO DO ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE INFORMATION? OKAY.
HOW EXTENSIVELY YOU MODIFY THE ORDINANCE? UM, SO I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, AND THEN TRYING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION NOW IS JUST SEEING, UM, HOW EXTENSIVELY YOU PROPOSE TO MODIFY OR RECOMMEND THE MODIFICATION IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND THAT ONE QUESTION, TONY, IF WE MET THE SEVEN PREPARE, THE NEXT MEETING IS TWO WEEKS AWAY.
CONNIE, WOULD THAT GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO ADVERTISE? IF WE DID HAVE TO GO TH THERE, THERE WOULD NOT BE AN, UH, ANY NEED TO, TO RE ADVERTISE.
UM, COUNSEL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
IF YOU WISH TO, YOU CAN, YOU CAN CONTINUE TO LEAVE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN IF YOU SO DESIRE, BUT YOU CAN, YOU CAN CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU HAVE, AND YOU HAVE 90 DAYS IN WHICH TO DELIBERATE AND TO CONSIDER, UH, THE AMENDMENT.
SO IF YOU CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING, UM, JUST BRINGING IT UP, DISCUSSING IT AT FUTURE MEETINGS, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE YOU, YOU WILL, YOU HAVE FULFILLED YOUR PUBLIC HEARING, UH, REQUIREMENT THIS EVENING.
WELL, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN NOW.
AND, UH, AND WE ARE, WE ARE, I THINK WE HAVE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION ON THE SEVENTH OF, UM, OF APRIL, BUT BE, UM, YEAH, I THINK IT'D BE GOOD.
WE, UH, CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO THE REGULATION OF COUNTERPOINT ROLES, ZONING, UH, PERMITTING APARTMENTS, AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE C2 DISTRICT TO APRIL THE SEVENTH WORK SESSION AT SEVEN O'CLOCK AT THE TOWN HALL.
[00:50:02]
POTTER.CAN YOU, CAN YOU, UH, PULL US COMMISSIONER GORDON? YES.
SO WE WILL, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A WORK SESSION SCHEDULED THEN, UH, WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I GUESS WE ARE AT, UH, UH, ITEM SIX OTHER APPLICATIONS.
[VIII. New Business]
BUSINESS RESOLUTION FOR FUNDING OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REWRITE.AND WE HAVE A ONE PAGE OF THAT, UM, ALONG WITH OUR, UM, OUR PACKET.
SO, UH, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS RESOLUTION.
THIS IS, UH, FOR, UM, REQUESTING FUNDS FOR UPDATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS SO OUT OF DATE.
IT'S AN, IT'S AN, IS IT OUT OF DATE? I DON'T WANT TO DESCRIBE IT ANY OTHER, OTHER WAYS.
UM, ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT? DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE A PRICE OR A COST ESTIMATE WITH THE RESOLUTION? IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ASKING FOR FUNDING TO, TO BE PROVIDED.
I TALKED TO, I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE, UH, WITH THE MANAGER, UH, BUT THE ADMINISTRATION LOOKING AT, UH, PERHAPS EVEN PUTTING OUT, I I'VE TALKED TO THE REGIONAL COMMISSION, I'VE TALKED TO SOME INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.
WE MAY PUT OUT EVEN A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, JUST TO TRY TO SOLICIT, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME BITS TO SEE WHAT THE CALLS WOULD BE FOR AN APPROPRIATE BUDGET NUMBER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE RESERVOIR, BUT IT WILL BE A REQUIREMENT OF SOME TIME FOR COUNCIL.
DOES THIS MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE TRYING TO TALK TO CITIZENS AND GET THE CITIZENS WHO MIGHT BE WILLING TO WORK ON THIS? IF, IF WE HIRE SOMEBODY THAT CUTS OUT THE NON-PROFESSIONALS CORRECT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR? THE, THE, THE PLAN IS THE CHAIRMAN'S NOTE IS, IS SIGNIFICANTLY OUT OF DATE AND IT REALLY DOESN'T REQUIRE AN UPDATE.
IT REQUIRES A REWRITE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE SEVERE, UH, AGE OF THE PLAN, UH, THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.
UH, BUT THE LIMITED STAFF THAT, THAT THE TOWN HAS AND WHAT THIS RESOLUTION, UH, I PREPARED THIS AT THE REQUEST IS, IS TO TRY TO ENSURE A CURRENTLY THERE IS, THERE ARE, THERE IS, THERE ARE NO FUNDS PROPOSED IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE REWRITE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THIS IS TRYING TO, UH, EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE, UH, OF FUNDING FOR SUCH PURPOSE TO BE INCLUDED IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.
BUT IN REALITY, THE, UH, THE STICKER SHOCK OF IT ALL COULD BE THAT THIS COULD BE IN EXCESS OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IS NOT AN UNREALISTIC SUM.
AND IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT, UM, TO TRY TO SOFTEN THE BLOW SO TO SPEAK IS, IS TO, UH, DO IT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'LL PROBABLY BE A, FROM WHAT I'VE DISCUSSED WITH OTHER, UM, PROFESSIONALS AND I'M OF THE SAME MIND, AT LEAST A, PROBABLY A 12 TO 18 MONTH PROCESS.
SO IT WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT TRYING TO SPREAD THAT COST OVER TWO FISCAL YEARS INSTEAD OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, THE ENTIRETY AND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET TO SPREAD IT OUT, THIS, UH, I THINK REFERENCE IT, SHARON, I HAD MADE SOME COMMENTS ON THE BOX DOCUMENT.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO SHARE.
I DON'T KNOW, ALFREDO, IF YOU SAW, I DID THE, I DID COMMISSIONER GORDON.
YOU SAID YOU DID, OR I DID SEE THEM COMMISSIONER GORDON.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE SEEING, UM, I GUESS THEY, THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE FINAL DRAFT.
[00:55:01]
WELL NEXT TIME.I MEAN, I I'D BE GLAD TO KNOW IT'S OKAY.
I DON'T, I DON'T REMEMBER MY, UH, BUT THE EXACT WORDING.
IT WAS JUST MENTIONED THE, UM, THE TIMING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE, UH, 20, 20 CENSUS DATA COMING OUT, AS WELL AS REINFORCING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS YOU'VE SAID, IS THE PREMIER POLICY DOCUMENT FOR THE TOWN.
AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD ACCURATELY REFLECT, ACT WHAT OUR VALUES ARE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
UM, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION POTTER.
WAS THERE A MOTION? UH, WELL, OKAY.
WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FROM THE FRONT ROYAL PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTING THE FUNDING OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND THE TOWN FISCAL YEAR 20, 20, SORRY, 2022 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE REWRITE OF THE TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PRESENTED.
SECOND, SECOND NOW BEEN MOVED.
COMMISSIONER MERCHANT, VICE CHAIRMAN MARSH NOUR.
[IX. Commission Member Reports]
ANY COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS, ACTUALLY THERE'S ONE LITTLE COMMENT THEN I'LL BE QUIET FOR THE REST OF THE EVENING.I BELIEVE THAT I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING ELSE ON THE SOUTH STREET.
UH, LAST YEAR WE APPROVED SOME SITE PLANS, UH, RIGHT NEAR THE, UH, UH, DUNKIN DONUTS ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THEY'VE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF REPAIRING THAT WALL THAT RAN ALONG FRONT.
YOU KNOW, IT USED TO BE AN OLD CONCRETE V DOT RETAINING WALL AND, AND, AND MR. BIGGS AND MR. BREW AND MR. WALKER, THE OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY, UH, IN MY OPINION, WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY BY, UH, PUTTING STONE WORK ON THAT CONCRETE WALL.
AND IT REALLY LOOKS NICE THAT THAT IS THE TYPE OF BUSINESSES AND PEOPLE WE NEED TO GET BETTER.
AND THE TOWN OF FRONT ROW, WE GET BETTER ONE SITE AT A TIME.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THEM FOR THE GREAT JOB THEY ARE DOING ON THE SITE WORK THERE.
UH, WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
UH, AGAIN, I GUESS THEY VOTE COMMISSIONER INGRAM.
COMMISSIONER MERCHANT, COMMISSIONER GORDON, CHAIRMAN JONES, VICE CHAIRMAN MARSH NER.