PC_12-05-12_Meeting_MinutesOt
•
MEETINGiMINUTES
OF "THE
FREDERICK .COUN.TY PLANNING COMMISSION
The meeting was: Held in: the .B'oard Room: of the Frederick, County Administration - Building at 107 North
Kent,Street in 'Winchester Virginia on December 5, 2012.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman / Member at Large; Brian Ma an, Opequon District; Gary
R. Oates, 'Stonewall District; : J,, Stanley Croekett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R: Ambrogi, Shawnee.
District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin W. Kenney;, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett,
Gairiesboro District; Greg -L... Unger„ Back Creek District; Kevin. O. `Crosen, Back Creek Districf, `
Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin McKannan, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison;
and. Roderick B. Williams, Frederick'County.Attomey.
ABSENT: Roger L Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; and Philip E. Lemieux, Red, Bud
District.
STAFF .PRESEN- T: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T,'.:Ruddy, Deputy' Planning,
Director; ,Mark R. Cheran, Zoning: Administrator; Candice E. Per 'kins; Senior Planner; 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 and
seconded'to adopt'the agenda for this evening's meeting as presented.
MINUTES
Commissioner Oates made: a motion to adopt the minutes: of October 17, 2012 as
presented. This,motion y
was seconded 6 Commissioner Crocket and unanimously approved.
Comrnissi'oner Oates made a motion to adopt 'the, mi -hutes of November 7, '2012 as
presented. This motion was seconded by'Commissianer Crocketand unanimously approved.
------- - - - - --
Fre&rick'County.P1anning Commission Page 29`15
Minutes of December 5, 201'2
_2-
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 11/09/12 Meeting
Commissioner. Madagan reported that the` primary .order of business was the, staff s
annual update on the competitiveness, of thearea; in particular, attracting new, business. in relation to other
'surrounding; areas. He said the staff provided data on several categories including;housing, labor, utilities,. r
land, and showed: a comparison between those categories in `our area and surrounding areas. -
Commissioner Madagan said there WAs7 not a,signif cant change from last, year to this year. 'He said the,
Winchester/ Frederick County area,rernains Flower than Northern Virginia,, obviously, but,higher in certain
categories than areas further south in the Valley. He said the other item of business was the 30'"
anniversary celebration, which will occur this Friday. He said the staff provided updates on the
celebration planning.
Comprehensive Plans && Programs C'onimit %e (CPPC) 11/19112 Meeting
commissioner Oates; reported the CPPC had two items. of discussion. The'-first item was,
the: Capital. Improvements Plan, (.ChP)�, which was reviewed with ,representafives from the chool Board,
the :Department of 'Public Services; and the Department of Parks & Recreation. He said. the second ;,item,
J ity g , ; _ an
was the discussion of land use. ad'acent. to the Lord Fairfax Commune Colle e which `will be
ongoing.topic into the =next year.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRABI — 11/20/12,3 eeting
Commissioner Oatesi- reported the HRAB discussed a cell tower on Fairview Road afthe
western limits of the, County.; 'He sa I i dthe'HRAB believed the applicant presented an, excellent package
for review; which should bei a template for cell tower applications in the, future. He said the HRAB
forwarded a recommendation of approval for. the tower. Commissioner Oates stated that, the HRAB's
Chairman,, Ms. Rloda,I{riz, announced her retirement.from the board after serving many years.,
Transpodati'on• Committee - 12'/03/12 Meeting
Commissioner .Oates reported the Transportation Committee discussed the Route 277
Project. He said there was discussion about the schools; business entrances, and: road design. In addition,
`the committee reviewed the, existing plan fbi-Ahe realignment of Aylor Road and 'two alternatives prepared
by VDOT:at thequt of iwas'st ll tlae best choiceCommissioner Oates said the committee believed the
original proposed - alignment
Fi;ed'erick County Planning Commission Page 2916
'Minutes of December 5, 201'2
k .d•
-3
Winchester City, Planning Commission
City 'Planning Commissioner; Kevin; McKannan; reported. the 'Wii�eheste "r City Plan_ ning'
Commission is cons idering, several fnixed use projects and, there` have; been several public bearings over
the previous two months. Coinmissioner McKannan said one project ;in particular the Commission is,
working on is an, ordinance, to conditionally, rezone 7.74 acres of property relatively close to Frederick
County and located in the western portion, of °the City; off Cedar Greek, across! from Harvest ;Ridge and:
adjacent. to Orchard Hills: Mr McKannan said-the City Planning Comrni_ssion pi's also working on var".ious
administrative approvals. on various proj,ects,, such as City National Bank; Merchant, Tire & _Auto, and a
ChuckyCheese.
PlanninZ Commission & Board. of Supervisors Work Session — 1.1/141.12 Meeting
Chairman Wilmot reported on a work session between the Planning ;Commission and the
Board of Supervisors to discuss changes to the RP (Residential Performance) Ordinance:. Chairman
Wilmot reported a considerable amount of good, work going into "this,topicand work continues.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on ,any i's_sue,not on this evening's agenda.
No one; came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed" the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING;
Rezoning° #08 -12. of Eastgate Commercial,, submitted by ,Patton; Harriis, ,Rust &. Associates, Inc. to
rev' e p g y relating t P f the
roffersr Thesproperties a ellocated w st of'F ront Ro al Pike (Rt. 522 South rattthe intersection, of
P�
Front Royal 'Pike and Maranto, Manor Drive; on the south side of Maranto Manor Dave., The
properties :are further identified with PA N.s 76- A -53J, 76- A -53K; 76- A -53L, 76-A -53M,. and, 76 -A
53N, in the ;Shawnee Magisterial District,
Action,— Recommended Approval
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported. this,, application is a minor proffer revision
to allow left-turn access into Parcels 31A and 3B from. Maranto Manor Drive. Mr. Ruddy stated this
access was previously proffered, out Jn addition; he said the proffers construct the access point and
clarify the limited access to the parcels on the north side :of Maranto 'Manor.Drive in, this location. Mr:
Ruddy noted this .modification has' been modefed and 'DOT and the Planning- Staff are satisfied that it
will function properly as proposed, although VD.OT does note confinued' reservatioris in their comments.
Frederick County P.Jannii gt:oin
Minutes of December, 5.;'20;1'2
Page.20,17
_4_
Mr. Ruddy explained the access,to the general area is, from Front Royal Pike. (Rt. ,522$)..
He,said what i "s being proposed °very simply:is.to °allow aright ui,;righi -out entering Maranto Manor Drive
from Route 522 North and a left ;turn from Route 522 into the sitefromahe south. To insure the project is.
.consistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) previously done, there are several commitments from
the applicants. Those commitments include: '1) no additional gas station provided on Parcel 2 or 3B;: and,
2) no truck traffic'or truck trailers to access the parcels. ,Mr.. Ruddy believed this should keep the traffic
consistent with what was originally approvedw.ith the 2007 Rezoning.
Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, "with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was representing, the .
applicant. Mr. Mislowsky stated that: A full TIA was submitted for VDOT so they could evaluate the
levels of service `at this entrance and the effects on Route .522. He said VD'OT :approved the TIA ;along;
with the revised version ofthe proffers.
Chairman Wilinot called for anyone who wished to speak. regarding this application to
please come forward. No one came ,forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment .
portion of therpublic , neeting;
Commissioner Manuel stated this was simply a minor revision and lie believed it was
good planning. In addition, Commissioner Manuel commented this minor revision was 'VD:OT approved
and the Planning. Staff concurs with VDOUs approval. Corn nissioner Manuel next made a motion to
;"recommend approval of Rezoning Application #08-12 of Eastgate Comfilercial. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner. Ainbrogi'and unanimously .passed:
recommend a royal , of Rezon1ih #08 -12 of Eastgate; Commercial, submitted by Patton, Hams, Rust
BE IT RESOLVED that the Frederick Goun Planning Commission does hereb Lmannno
PP g &
Associates; Inc.. to revise proffers 'associated with .Rezoning #02 -Q7 and .relating to the transportation,
section of the proffers. The proper@ies are located west .of Front Royal Pike (Rt: 522 South) at the
intersection of Front Royal Pike and, Maranto;;Manor Drive,. on the south;side ofMaranto Manor- Drive.
(Note.CommissionersLemieux and Thomas were absent .from, the meeting:)
-Master Development Plan; 0642 of Snowden Bridge, submitted by 'Greenway .Engineering,
containing, a mix of single - family, townhouse, and multi- family residential ;units: fora total of 1,234
residential. dwelling units. This Master Development Plan (MDP) contains the majority of Landbay
III of the Snowden Bridgedevel'opment and contains both :a revision for a ,portion of Landbay, III,
originally approved in 2008, and administratively revised 'in 201`1, as well as additional acreage
located in Land_bay III. The properties are located on, the 'south `side of Old Charles Town Road
(Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt.'664), and east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662).. The properties
are further identified with P.LMs 44- A41B, 44- A7292'A, and 44 -A =293 in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
No Action Required
Senior Planner; Candice E::Perkins, reported thisMaster=Development Plan (MDP) is to
develop 285:40 acres of land zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) ,Distract with a,, total o .1. 234
Frederick` County_ Planning Commission Page�2918
Minutes, ofDeceinber 5', 20 1'2
-5-
residential dwelling units Ms Perkins said the development consists of a mix of single- family,
� townhouse, and multi family residential - units,, She explained this MDP contains the.majority of Landbay,
III of the Snowden;Bridge development-;,,it contains both a revision for a portionof Landbay III that, wasp
originally' approved in -2008 and administratively revised in;2011, as well as additional acreage located. in.
Landbay 11h
Ms: Perkins said the:;lVIDP for Snowden,.Bridge "is consistent with the Comprehensive "
Plan, the zoning ordinance, and'the ;proffers, for Rezoning #06 -03. She: stated that this. MDP •is presented:
to the Planning Commission this: evening as an informational 'item only.
Commissioner 'Oates "commented that it appeared this phase .of development rea'che's
1;234 residential. units and the - applicant is at, the threshold, where they will have to" complete Snowden
Bridge, Boulevard out to Route 1: L. Commissioner Oates also commented, that the applicantAs nearing the
threshold of the commercial aspect of this development as well. Ms. Perkins stated thatwliat is .before the;
Commission does not trigger those proffers atthis time..
Mr, Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson with Lawson & S lek, P.L.C., introduced .himself and.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt fron Greenway ;Engineering; Inc., as, the representatives for Brookfield- Stephenson
Village. ;Mr. Lawson stated this MDP ,is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and. completes aid_
plans the remainder of the property owned by Brookfield "Stephenson Village, LLC Mr. Lawson,
commented that: the community center and "the other recent improvements' have sparked' interest and, as a
°result, the appl'i'cant is movingi forward ; with planning !and pis ooking,fo_r- -ward optimistically:to,,the future.
Chairman Wilmot asked ,Mr,.;Lawson if this was the final MDP for,thi'sdevelopment. Mr.
Lawson .recalled' that the property was3 di -vided a couple ;years ago:, he said this is the, final M"DP for" ithe
portion owned by Brookfield Stephenson 'Village.
Chairman Wilmot asked, if any member of the 'public would like to c6mment on this
MDP. No one came forward to. speak.
No comments made were, made by any of the Commission members and no issues were
raised. No action wa "s_ required by the Planning�Commission and the Staff noted they would forward the
MDP on to the Board of `Supervisors:
(Note; and `Lemieux wete.absent from the meeting.)
COMIVIISSION'DISCUSSION
Deputy Plannin Director Michael November 19, the CPPC,
T, Ruddy,; reported. that on No
(Comprehensive p tY g. g ) Executive _ � p
Coin rehenswe Plans � &. Pro rams �Commtttee Executive Comrriittee reviewed this � ear s CIP Ca ital
Improvements Plan) and; had, recommended :that it was m conformance with the County s Comprehensive
Policy Plan, and 'forwarded it ito the, Planning Commission. Mr. Ruddy noted the purpose behind the CIP
i to appropriately plan public facilities and make :certain the 'projects are consistent with, the'.
Rederick,County Planning.Commission Page 29'19 .
Minutes of December 5, 2012
Comprehensive Plan It .also; e_iisures that capital, needs associated with future rezoning .projects; are
t, appropriately accounted for
Mr: Ruddyatated the, 2013 -20'14 CIP contains 86 projects, which is slightly less than .last
year's CIP. Several projects were, moved off" the CIP because-they have either been funded or completed
and in addition, some re- organization has, streamlined the CIP:
Mr. Ruddy introduced some of the :representatives of the various departments and:
agencies with projects on the CIP: Mr.: Mathew Hott, with the, Department of Parks & Recreation; Mr
'Wayne Lee, with Frederick County PublicS'chools and Ms'. Gloria Puffnberger., with the�Department of
Public Services.. Mr. Ruddy reviewed: those, projects °that have moved forward or have been 'completed.;
He described a few of the new ,andlor modified projects: the Indian Hollow Elementary School,
renovations; 'the Parks & Recreation's Aquatic Center and the Abrams Creek Greenway Trail- and:
regarding;transportation, the Route 277• improvements on Fairfax Pike is a new project:
In addition to the various projects listed' .on the table and project desctiptions 'and
projected costs frorn'the various departments and agencies, Mr. Ruddy pointed out the four maps which
are a part of the CIP.
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments or eomitients from any of the
Chairman _ W
representatives of the de.partments.and;agenIcies: No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Oates stated that the, CPPC Executive Commiftee thoroughly reviewed
and discussed all of the projects on the CIP. Commissioner- Oates thanked Mr. Ruddy .:for his .swift
response following up on questions and issues from the committee. Commissioner` Oates; believed, the
CIP wa's in, good .shape and felt it should be forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors..: „
.Discussion of a proposed ordinance; amendment: to the Frederick 'County Code, Chapter'
Zoning, Article V, Planned Development Districts, Section 502,, ,R5 (Residential Recreational
Community _- _ munty) District. This proposed revision will allow private streets in the R5 District for all
types of developments by removing the age :restricted requirement.
No Action Required
Commissioner Mohn said he would abstain from all discussion of this proposed
ordinance amendment; .due to a possible conflict of interest.
Senior Planner; Candice E Perkins, reported that staff had received a request to allow the
use of private streets for all types of developments in the R5' (Residential Recreational Community)
Zoning'Distri'ct. Ms. Perkins'isaid currently, the.use of private streets in. the, R5, District is only permitted
within age - restricted communities.- and'only;if approved:by'the ROard of Supervisors., $he explained that
the age - restricted private street allowance was added into the R5'.Zonin_g District in. 2000, along, with.,a
number of other revisions`. She said that; prior to the adoption .of the- age- restricted private street ,
allowance,,the use of public streetswas mandatory .for all new developments, iti the R5 District,
Frederick County: Planning °Coin mission Page 2920
Minutes of December.5, 2012
_7_
Ms Perkins noted that this amendment proposes to allow the use of private streets within..
all. developments in 'the _'R5 District, but would still require Board of Supervisors' approval. She-also
noted, that this text amendment lias the not to modify communities, previously .approved as age--
"restricted and could introduce 'dwelling, units `that -accommodate all ages. As a result, the impacts on the
County's school system should be,considered= withthis amendment_:
W. Perkins stated 'that. in addition to the expansion of the use of private streets, also
included within the amendment is text ;stating that VDOT pavement, sections must be adhered to. as well
as all accessory 'features; ;requirements stating `the roads will not `be accepted by the. County or VDOT,
which needs to be written within all subdivision plans, plats, Wfd sales material; requirements for., the
developer to establ.i'sh a reserve fund and requirements that the developer have an engineer certify the
construction of the private roads.
Ms. Perkins, stated 'that this: proposed amendment was ,discussed by:` the pRRC
(Development Review &Regulations Committee) at their October 20`l2 meeting and the DRRC had
minor chanp -es to the proposed 'text.. She said, the changes were emailed to, the DRRC and they endorsed
the revised text :and recommended it be, serf to the ,Planning Commission for discussion. Ms. Perkins,
stated this item is presented to til e' Coinmission.for discussion and,all comments and, suggestions from the;
Planning Commission will be forwarded to-the Board ofS'u,pervisors:
Chairman Wilmot; called for anyone who wished to speak :regarding this proposed
ordinance amendment;, however, no one came ;;forward to speak.
The' Plannm , Commission believed there had been sufficient; review
and d_ iscussion of
this item at "the 'committee level. 'They believed it °was: in good form and had no issues or question& at this
point. Ms. Perkins stated' thaf she fwould forward the :amendment onto the Board of.Supervisors with, the
• Planning Commission.. s, endorsement.
Discussion- of a proposed
' ordinance,
_nt e Frederick County Chapter 165,:
Zoning, Article VII � De elop ment Plan nApprovals, S ct on 801 Maste Develop.ent
Pl'ans'.
This proposed 'revision will update the ,master development plan (MpP) submission and processing,
requirements and will also modify a number of 'MDP references throughout Chapter 165 to
conform to the Section 801 revision.
No Action Required
Senior Planner -, Candice E', Perkins,, reported this proposed iamendment will update the,
N40P (Master Development Plan'), review and subrnission requirements. Ms. Perkins noted that currently;
the county does not - process MDPs asr ouilined in -Part 801 of the zoning ordinance- "specifically, the
ordinance requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the :Board of Supervisors and
subsequently, the:Board:is required to approve, ordeny the'MDP. Ms.'Perkins state that since MDPs only
demonstrate compliance, with County Code, they're not actually scheduled for review ;at a public meeting
until they have m'et:all County requirements and have addressed, all review'agency comments,. Therefore,
MDPs, _as currently processed, are= informational items and are only ,presented to the Plannin "g
Commi`ssi'on and the Board of'Superyisors for information.
Frederick County Planning Comission Page 292'1'
Minutes of December's 20`12
I
$'-
• 1Vls Perkins stated that t, staff `has drafted a number of changes to Part. 801 to, update the
thDt em was discussed bps the (Development Review & Reuations Comm ttety She noted that
requirements P reorganized
y ( p _ g e:) at their October
meeting and staff is seeking comments from the Planning of
to Commission to, send to the Board
,Supervisors:
Commissioner Mohn believed, the changes were good and were long overdue. Other
Commission members agreed.. No questions or issues were raised and Ms. ,Perkins said she would
forward the item to,the Board of Supervisors' for•discussi'on_
------ - - - - --
Discussion of a °proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, .Chapter 122,
Nuisances. This proposed revision will address the cutting_ 'of tall. ;grass and weeds in ,,the ;
commercial districts.
No Action Required
Senior, Planner; Candice E. Perkins, reported the Planning Staff has been requested to
draft a revision to Chapter 122=Nuisances to address the cutting. of tall grass and weeds in ' 0mmercial and
industrial, zoning districts. She said currently, the: ordinance only pertains to residential zoning districts.
Ms Perkins.said also included are, revisions to•the notice requirements and the addition of lien °text. > `
Ms. Perkins said this item was discussed 'by the DRRC (Development Review' -- &
Regulations: Committee), in October. She said the original version included all commercial and industrial -
zoning districts; however, the DRRC recommended the proposal be, limited to only, the, B I and B2
Districts'. She said the amendment: was: .revised accordingly and is presented to they Commission with
those revisions. Ms. Perkins said the staff ,is, seeking: comments. from •the Planning Commission to
forward to the Board.of Supervi'sor's:
Commissioner Oates commented that he =attended, a meeting last week with DCR _,
(Department of Conservation & Recreation) and they are working on the, new storm water, regulations
which will come- into effect in 2014. -Commissioner Oates 'said 'in 201.4, the State is,,gping: to consider;,
basically; 'a mowed lawn as, an impervious area which needs; to be 'treated. He •said: the DCR Is:
encouraging natural growth in all commercial and nldustrial areas to offset storm water impacts.
Commissioner .Oates suggested that the Commission may be going in the. wrong 'direction with; this
proposed ordinance, amendment at, this'time;• especial ly in light- ofthe comments from the DCR. `
Ms, Perkins mentioned,the;_many citizen complaints - received over the years: concerning
tall ,grass; which is why this proposed amendment.:is being brought forward,
Commissioner Moh l pointed out a. distinction ;between areas; intentionally''left alone, to
satisfy water q uali t"°issues and which, is. purposely p lanted with, i?di g enous plants, versus those areas and
,
yards that just get unintentionally overgrown especially in neighborhoods. Commissioner Mohn said the
issues will create some; interesting discussions,
a
'Ms. Perkins. stated that she would forward the Planning Commi'ssion's comments to, the Board of
Supervisors..
,Fred'erick,.County. Planning Comrrii'ssion „Page 2922
,Minutes of December 5,, 2042
y
0
------- - - - - --
Discussion of a osed ro
p , p ordinance, amendment to the Frederick County, :Code, Chapter 165,
Zoning, Article IV, Ag-riculiu=al and .Residential Districts, Part 401; RA (Rural Areas) District.
This proposed ovision will remove a waiver opportunity 'in the RA District- which allows the, Board.
of'Supervisors'to reduce,setbacks for existing lots:
No Action. Required'
Senior ,Planner; Candice E. Perkins, .reported this is a minor revision in the RA (Rural
Areas). District. Ms. Perkins: said. the Planning Staff' has been asked to remove a waiver opportunity
contained. -in the. RA (Rural Areas) Zoiiing District which allows the Board of Supervisors to `reduce the
setbacks for an existing ,lot of record, if an undue: hardship exists: SN esdicl this waiver should be
eliminated because requests of this type4 should be haridledby the. Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Perkuis,
stated this proposed ainendinent wag discussed by the DRRC. (Development Review, &: Regul`ation "s!
Committee) at "their.October 20`T.2 meeting. She said the DRRC endorsed the proposed revision as drafted
and recommended it be sent to,the'Planning Commission for discussion.
-No questions or issues of :concern, were raised by the. Planning Commission. No one in
the audience wished to !speak. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the. proposed amendment on to t1i
Board of Supervisors for their discussion..
OTHER
CANCELLATION OF TIIE! DECEMBER 19, 2012_MEETIN.G
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items .for the Planning;
Commission's December 19, 2012 meeting.
Upon motion made by° Commissioner Oates and isecoii&d :by Commissioner Crockett; thee
Planning Commission unanimo.uslyvoted'to cancel their December 19, 2012 meeting
ADJOURNMENT
'No further business remained - to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates
and second by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting adjourned at, 7:3`0 p.m, by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick County Planning Comini'ssion, Page 2923
.Minutes of December 5, 2012;
s