PC 01-02-13 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES`
OF THE:
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING "COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of 'the Frederick County Administration Building .at 107 North Kent Street in,
Winchester, Virgiiia:on January, 2„ 201`3..
PRESENT,: June M. Wilmot, Chairman /.Member at Large; Roger ,L: Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opegpon District,, Brian Madagan; 'Opequon. District; Gary R. Oates; Stonewall District;; Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, 'Shawnee 'District; H. Paige'Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett; Gainesboro District
Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger:. 'Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek
District, ChHstopher`M..Mohn, Ked Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: J. 'Stanley Crockett„ Stonewall District; Philip E. Lemieux,; Red Bud District;
STAFF :PRESENT,: Eric, R. Lawrence, Planning` Director ;Michael, T,.Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; Mark R, Cheran, Zoning & Sbbdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins; Senior.Plaimer.; and'
Renee' S-. Arlotta,,Cle)7k. _
CALL TO ORDER &- ADOPTION OF A'G'ENDA
Cl a1-i -nan Wilmot called, the :meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. A. motion was made by
Commissioner 'Oates,, :seconded`by Commissioner Thomas; and unanimously passed to adopt the 'agenda
fo'r tli'is evening's',meeting as presented.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS„ MEETING SCHEDULE, _AND. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS AND
RULES & RESPONSIBITITIESFOR42013
The Secretary to, Planning Commission, Mn Eric; R. Lawrence, presided over the
electiori of the Chairmad Vice Chair°for 2013.
Electi'on-of 3,une A W lmot:`Cha rinan for 2013
Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open -for Chairman for the 2013 calendar year,,
The nomination of 'Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner
Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett.
Frederick County, PIanning'Corrimission Page 2924
Minutes of.January 2,:20.,1'3
Z-
A motion, was`niade by Comm.lssibner. Oates, - seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and
unanimously ,passed to close nOrninatio»s for Chairman.
BE,,IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous` wote, "the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
elect 'Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the'Planni ig Commission for the Year of 2013.
Eleection of Roger L. Thomas,. Vice Chairman for 2013
Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open; for Vice .Cliairman for the 20;13 calendar.
year.
The nomination Mr.. Roger L; Thomas was made by Commissioner Oates and
seconded'by, Confinissioner Triplett.
Nloti'on. was made' b.': Cornm ssi ner Oates, seconded by 'Commissioner Triplett; andY
unanimously passed to close the,,n om i nations for Vice Chairman.
BE 1T'RESOLVED, that by :a unan`imous.uote, the'Frederick;County Planning Commission does hereby
elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the, Planning. Commission for °the Year of 2013.
Election of;EricR. Lawrence, Secretary for`2013
Chairman Wilmot.declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission.
The :nomination of .'1VIr. Eric, .R. Lawrence; was made by Commissioner Oates and
seconded by Commissioner Thomas;
Motion, was made .by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and
unanimously passed to close the noriiinations for Secretary:
B.E,IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County P1'anni ig Commission does hereby
elect-Mr., Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the.Planning Commission for the Year of 201,3.
MEETING SCHEDULE FOR. 2013 `
Aanni'n2 Commission, and Committees
Upon motion, made by Commissioner Thomas,, and seconded by C.ommssioiierTriplett,
Frederick County Plarining.Commission Page 2925'
Minutes of January 2, 20'1'3
3-
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County.Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their
regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be field in the
Board of Supervisors' meeting room in the Frederick County. Administration Building. In addition, if
inclement weather prohibits the Wednesday evening meeting, the Commission shall move the meeting to
Thursday evening, which is the day after the. regularly- scheduled Wednesday meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that,the Frederick County Planning Commission has voted unanimously
for their Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee to meet the second Monday of each month at
7`00 p.m. in the first floor cot4erence room; and for the Development Review and Regulations
Committee to meet on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p,m,: in the first floor conference room.
Committee Assignments for 2013
Regarding corm-nittee assighments for the calendar year of 2013, Chairman Wilmot asked
the Planning Commission members to remain, in their current committee assignments until she had the
opportunity to communicate with everyone individually and determine if everyone is satisfied with their
particular role.
Chairman Wilmot next announced the following llialsong*i Transportation Committee,
Commissioner Oates; Historic Resources Advisory Board, Commissioner Oates; Economic Development
Commission, Commissioner 1Vladagan; Sanitation Authority, Commissioner Unger; Conservation
Easement Authority, Commissioner Triplett; and Winchester Planning Commission, Commissioner
Kenny.
Plan ninjZ'Commission Bylaws and Roles & Responsibilities for 2013
Planning, Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Planning Commission's Bylaws and the
Roles and Responsibilities were both reviewed by the Commission last month and two modifications
were deemed to be appropriate in the Planning Commission's Bylaws. Under Article V- Committees,
Section 5 -8, the word "annual was stricken from the first sentence to read, "The committees may
establish standing _subcommittees whose activities will be a specific responsibility of the parent
committee:" Under Article VI- Commission Meetings, Section 6 -5, the phrase, "and/or the Board of
Supervisors was ;added. °to read,, "Work sessions shall beheld at, the adjournment of regular meetings or at
the, time and,place set by the. - Commission and /or the Board of Supervisors.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick, County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the
Planning Coinmissibn's Bylaws and Roles & Responsibilities for the calendar year of 2013, as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2926
Minutes of January 2, 2013
4-
CITIZEN 'COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for cifizen.comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed by Citizen Comments portion of the
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #09 -12 of Clearbrook, °Retail. Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 14.53 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2`(Business General) District with proffers. The property is
located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) of the, intersection with Cedar Hill Road 9Rt.
671), fronting Route 11 and I -81. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 33 -A -125 in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for -45 Days
Commissioner Oates said that he would abstain. from all discussion and voting on this
rezoning due to a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated the. proposal is to rezone 14.53 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with proffers. Mr. Ruddy reported that in 2009, the
Board of Supervisors, following a unanimous recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission,
denied Rezoning, Application REZ #09 -07 for the same property. Their decision was based prim_ arily on
concerns that the transportation impacts demonstrated by the, TIA for this particular location were not
fully addressed or mitigated by the applicant's proffer. In addition, the project would not: provide. a LOS
Level of..Service) of or better at.the two major intersections on Route 11..
Mr. Ruddy stated the parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the
County's SWSA {Sewer and Water Service. Area) and the site is within the limits of the NELUP
Northeast Land Use Plan). He said the NELUP designates this site for business use and, therefore, the
B2 zoning request is consistent with the NELUP. Mr. Ruddy doted the applicant has proffered a GDP
Generalized Development Plan) identifying the areas of development and recognizing existing
drainfields located on the property which serve the adjacent residences. Also, access to the property will
not be directly onto Route 11; but rather, the adjacent property will be used to provide inter - parcel
accessibility.: He noted the proffer statement provides for right -of -way dedication along Route 11 and the
construction of a 1240- ot,travel lane across the frontage of the site along Route 11. This improvement
would -be extended along the frontage of the adjacent property to the south, which will be the only access
to this site as part, of the initial development of the site. In addition, the ,application addresses the
intersection of.Route 11 and the site by proffering into a signalization agreement for a traffic light at the
intersection; however, the proffer enables the applicant to apply a monetary amount to this intersection,
should a roundabout be the intersection of choice based on the Eastern Road Plan. Mr. Ruddy
commented that. if this amount is insufficient to construct roundabout intersection improvements, the
applicant should, consider constructing this improvement outright,. if warranted.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2927
Minutes of January 2, 200 3
5-
Mr. Ruddy continued, stating the application' addresses the intersection of Route 1 I and
Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) by proffering to present the County with.a feasibility study and engineered road
plan for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike, with the general scope
and location of the study being depicted on Exhibit A of the proffer statement.
In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated the impacts associated with the request have generally
been., addressed by the applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in
this rezoning application than the previous one. With regard to the transportation impacts, he recognized
the applicant lids provided proffers aimed at °addressing those impacts- identified in the immediate vicinity
of the site.. However, the app_ li_cant's proffer of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the
intersection of Route I I and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads should be evaluated to determine if this
approach would sufficiently address the impacts identified at this intersection. Mr. Ruddy said that an
acceptable LOS is not. achieved at this intersection as identified in the appl'icant's TIA (Transportation
Impact Analysis).
Commissioner Manuel inquired if the proffered amount of $100,000 was appropriate for
a traffic signal. Mr. Ruddy replied that entering. into a signalization agreement varies in the amount and
generally caps at $1 00,000.
Commissioner Thomas. noted that since the GDP is included . as a proffer, any
modification to the GDP would require the applicant to come back to the Commission and Board for
approval. Commissioner Thomas commented about a slight degradation of the7 LOS on Brucetown Road
and he inquired if VDOT had concerns about that. Mr. Ruddy replied the County has. been continually
more concerned about that particular intersection than VDOT, from the County's perspective.
Commissioner Mohn, referred to the proffered limitation on the ADT (Average Daily
Trips) and he asked how this would be implemented. Commissioner Mohn inquired if this would happen
at the site plan stage based on specific uses and the ITE rates or would it be a hybrid between the ITE
rates and actual'trip generation to determine if there is additional capacity. Mr. Ruddy stated it would
probably be a combination of both as the project moves forward. Mr. Ruddy said any site development
plan provided will `have sorne potential trips based on those ITE numbers designated. Should the project
come in different phases, then there will be some consideration of existing land uses, existing
development, and actual trips, which then would be compared to future additional construction' on ,the
property.
Chairman Wilmot referred to the plat dealing with the location of the proposed study.
She asked if VDOT had approved this location or indicated that it was sufficient7 area to study. Mr.
Ruddy stated it was, solely consistent with what was provided with the Woodside Rezoning Request and
the County "accepted that as the. scope of the study at that time. Mr. Ruddy said it was not something -that
VDOT'has accepted as part ofthe'proffers but,is something the County is accepting-with the proffer..
Mr. Tim Stowe with. Stowe, Engineering came ..forward to represent the applicant. 'Mr.
Stowe stated he prepared the traffic study for the project and the project has received approval from 14
separate reviewing agencies.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2928
Minutes of January 2, 20 13
Commissioner Thomas; raised concern about the incompatibility between the applicant's
estimated ADT (average daily trips) based on peak hour traffic in the TIA. and the applicant's proffer
statement which limited the amount of daily trips. Commissioner'Thornas's issue was that the proffered
daily trip number was rather high, while the TIA is based bn about one tenth of that .number; he, said the
two calculations don't match up. Commissioner Thomas commented that if there are 5,700 TPD, the
impact on the intersections and the LOS is going to be significantly different than what the applicant
projected.
Mr. Stowe replied the applicant met. with the County's Transportation Director, Mr. John
Bishop, aiid representatives of VDOT in order to make assumptions about the types of development
which could be built 'on the property and the TIA is based on .those assumptions. He said in this case,
there will be specialty retail and a fast -food restaurant. Mr. Stowe said at the rezoning stage, they don't
know exactly what type of retail would :end up there, whether it's a. retailer that attracts ten trips per day
or 100. Therefore, they allowed some head room to be able to build the facility and comply with the
proffers, without putting undo restraints on the owner of the property.. In response to Commissioner
Thomas's concern, Mr. Stowe believed the outcome would be the same even if he changed the
calculations. He said that installing. a signal, or a round -about at the intersection, where they are sharing
that particular entrance with other properties, would be, sufficient for much more traffic than what's been
forecasted with this particular study.
Chairman Wilmot referred to VDOT's response to the subject TIA "second submittal,"
and she asked .if this was a different TIA for this application or if this was the second time VDOT looked'
at the original TIA. Mr. Stowe said it was the second time VDOT looked at the original TIA; he said the
cover sheet has a revision date of September 12, 2012. Chairman Wilmot concluded that the. Commission
was reviewing a TIA from some time: ago. Chairman Wilmot commented that the transportation impacts
were the initial dilemma forthis property; she thought it would be helpful if the applicant could share how
this application is attending to those dilemmas brought forward by the Board of- Supervisors.
Mr. Stowe replied this submittal was different in that it- used.an inter - parcel connector -for
access to the property. So it has moved the access further south on Martinsburg Pike,, away from the
intersection of Cedar .Hill Road and Martinsburg Pike. Since the Board. acted on this the first time,
VDOT has; implemented access standards that restrict how close those entrances can be. So this not only
follows the Comprehensive Policy Plan for using 'inter - parcel connectors where possible, A actually
proffers to do so.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. The
following persons came forward to speak:
Ms..Debby Driver, an, adjoining property owner, was opposed to the rezoning because it
would restrict her from selling her own residential property.. Ms. Driver said selling 'her property as
residential would be a challenge since the land in front of her has been rezoned to B3 and B2 and the land
behind her is zoned B2: Ms. Driver said she cannot rezone her property because she is in a residential
subdivision. In addition,, she stated that her access to the granted easement to the inter- parcel connector
road is blocked by her neighbors' existing drainfields. Ms. Driver stated that all of°the adjoining property
owners wouldprefer for %the applicant to purchase their properties. She believed the rezoning only made
sense for the developer and if approved,. would be a prime example of spot zoning. Ms. Driver added that
water :and sewer easements have not been addressed in the proposed application' and. she was concerned
the financial burden would be. placed on the adjoining property owners. She asked' the, Commission to
Frederick County Planning Commission Page '2929
Minutes of January 2, 2013'
7—
recommend denial of flie rezoning application in accordance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, as it
would not benefit the lifestyle of any of the adjoining residential properties.
Ms. Ela ne'MaGee, an adjoining property owner, was opposed to the rezoning. She .said
a primary goal of the Comprehensive, Policy Plan is, "to protect and improve the living environment;"
however, the proposed rezoning:°will have a.,negative ,impact on. her quality of life. She said if the
rezoning is approved,. her residential property would be devalued', it would= be difficult to sell, and it
would create a financial burden. .Ms. MaGee said she cannot afford to ,rezone her property and if she
could 'rezone to commercial, she 'would not be able to get access onto Route 11.. She pointed out that
although the application states the surrounding property owners would be allowed an 'inter- parcel
connection, the easement is through driveways, travel isles, and parking areas prohibiting access to the,
inter- parcel connector road. She said the homeowners' driveways do. not go towards this property and the
area between this property and ;the residences is not feasible for providing connector roads. She noted
that West Luke Drive dead ends at'her neighbor's property line. Ms. MaGee was also concerned that the
transportation impacts have not been adequately addressed in this application. She said the NELUP states
that proposed °industrial and commercial development should occur only if'impacted roads function at a
LOS "C" or better; she said the LOS at Route 1l and Hopewell Road falls,:below that level. She said the
NELUP also states that,Route I I should be expanded to a four -lane road, which has not been done. Ms.
MaGee thought the traffic fight at Brucetown Road had not helped the traffic congestion. In addition, she
thought a large construction project; such as this :one, may cause damage to the foundation of her,home
because of the limestone in the area. Ms. MaGee believed Frederick County should be fair to its citizens
who have lived and paid taxes in Frederick County and she urged the Commission to recommend denial.
of the proposed application.
Mr. Dan Schalf, an, adjoining property ,owner, said he was opposed to the proposed
rezoning, application for the same .reasons previously stated by the ,other property owners. His concerns
included: decreased residential property values; the existing residential drainfields would be negatively
impacted 'from the commercial development and may not .function properly; his well water could be
negatively affected by runoff; the future possibility that residences. will be required to connect to public
water and sewer, which is very costly; and regarding the future north- bound' oii =ramp off Cedar Hill Road,
lie had concerns about the increased traffic generation. ,
Mr. Mark Regan, an adjoining property owner, believed this proposal was significantly
worse than the one rejected by the Board of Supervisors in 2009; lie believed the proffers should be
doubled with this submittal; but ;instead they are reduced: He said the application was vague and needed
further detail on what is planned to be constructed; there have been no infrastructure improvements and
traffic congestion has increased; and, the 'addition of a dead -end street was an invitafion for crime. Mr.
Regan'thought the traffic signal at Brucetow,n and Hopewell„ Roads has had a major negative impact on
caught stopped gg
on Route 11.. hHecsa d the traffic signals northbound on Route l l aaRedbud Road are misaligned
l
and
cannot,.be seen until it's almost- too, late to react. Considering this, Mr. Regan did not believe it was
practical to install another traffic signal or build a roundabout: He: predicted the construction noise and
dust will be unbearable. He. believed •there was, a decline in the quality of life. for the residents in this part
of the County. Mr. Regan asked the Commission members to support the residents with a
recommendation of denial'for this rezoning application.
No one else remained to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment, portion
of the.,hearing.
Frederick County Planning Comiission Page 2930
Minutes of' January `2;- 20.13
ME
Commissioner Thomas remained 'concerned about the. traffic. In particular, he said the
TIA and the applicant's proffer'do not match up and are .disconnected. He, said in order to reach the
projected maximum trips per day, there would be a 50% increase in traffic on Route 11. He did not think
it was practical for the site to reach that-maximum ; but he, believed the proffers and the TIA should match
up before the Planning Commission acts, on this application. He couldn't imagine that doubling the
amount of trips would not have an impact on the LOS at the intersections. Regarding mitigation to the
surrounding properties, he understood 'the views of the speakers, but commented the properties are
protected either by a stormwater management area or a no- disturbance area.
Commissioner T,horimas :next made a.motion to table this rezoning application for 45 days
in order to allow the applicanttime to clarify the disconnect between their levels of service within the TIA
and the maximum daily trips proffered; and to allow the applicant time to carry out more discussions with
the adjoining property. owners on the impacts to their properties. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously agrees to table
Rezoning #09 -I2 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., for 45 days in order to
allow the applicant time to clarify, the disconnect between their levels of -service within the TIA and their
maximum daily trips proffered; and, to allow the applicant time to carry. out additional discussions with
the adjoining. property owners on the impacts to their properties.
Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from voting; Commissioners Crockett and Lernieux were absent-
from the meeting:)
2013 -2014 Capital Imp "rovements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The C1P is a prioritized list of
capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an
informational document to assist in the development of Frederick County's annual budget.: If
adopted, the Cl [P is a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Action - Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Comprehensive Policy
Plan (CPPC) Executive Committee met with County deparment and agency representatives to discuss
their individual capital improvement project requests, including new projects and modifications to
previous requests associated with the 2013 -2014 CIP (Capital Improvements Plan). Mr. Ruddy said the
role of the CPP-.0 in the CIP 1process is to ensure the various departmental project requests are in
conformance withl the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Following these discussions, the CPPC
endorsed the 2013 -2014 CIP' and endorsed its conformance with 'Frederi'ck County's Comprehensive
Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy stated that both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
concurred with this endorsement during their individual discussions and :affirmed the CIP's conformance
with the Comprehensive; Policy Plan., He noted that "this year's CIP contains 86 projects, submitted by
the various public facility providers, including Public Schools, Parks & Recreation, County Government,,
Airport, Library, and Fire & Rescue. Mr. Ruddy referred to the table within the CIP which identifies all
of the projects in order, of preference'by the various agencies Mr,.. Ruddy also referred to the four maps
included with the CIP, the general County Govern ment;map, one specific to schools, one specific to Parks
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2931
Minutes of January 2, 2013
Recreation improvements, and one specific to transpoi-tation,projects. He noted that the CiP package
will become a component of Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Chairman Wilmot inquired if there were any changes to the CIP 'since. the Planning
Commission's discussion. Mr. Ruddy replied that dollar amounts have been included for school projects
for, the. first time and Parks & Recreation had modified their description of`an aquatic center, particularly,
the, size and location. Chairman Wilmot:also inquired about the change to the Clearbrook'Fire & Rescue
Station. M'r. Ruddy stated the land value was eliminated from Clearbrook Fire &:Rescue's project request
because it was recognized the land value should not have been a component. initially. He said that
Clearbrook Fire ,& Rescue had land that was available for this project..
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates made a motion that the CIP is in conformance with Frederick
County's Comprehensive Policy Plan and recommended that it be adopted by the Board of Supervisors..
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse
the 2013 -2014 Capital .Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County and acknowledges its conformance
with Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the 2013 -2014 CIP be approved and that it become a
component ofFrederick County's 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan..
Note: Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.)
A proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapt0165, Zoning, Article IV,
Agricultural and Residential Districts; Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District, 165402.1
Intent, 165 - 402.02 Permitted Uses, 165- 402.03 Conditional Uses, 165 - 402.04. Number of Uses
Restricted, 165- 402.05 Gross Density, 165- 402.06 Multifamily Housing; 165 - 402.07 Open Space
Requirements, 465- 402.08 Recreation `Facilities, 165- 402.09 Dimensional Requirements, 165 402.10
Phased Development; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations
for Specific Uses, Part .203 Buffers and landscaping, 165 - 203.01 Landscaping Requirements, 165-
203.02 Buffer and Screening. Requirements, Part -261 Supplementary Use Regulations, 165- 201.02
Setback Requirements; Article I 'General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits;
Part 101 General provisions, 165 7101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions will
update the Residential. Performance District.
Action — Recommended Approval
S:ernior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the proposed revisions are considered to be
significant amendments and the staff and, the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Committee)
have been working o» them. .for quite some time. Ms. Perkins said the revisions primarily consist of a
number of changes. to the RP (Residential Performance) District, along with a number of other
corresponding zoning ordinance isections. She said overall, the proposed changes are intended to ensure
the ;requirements Within the .zoning ordinance are: 1) easier to understand in terms of format; 2) provide
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2932
Minutes of January 2, 2013
10—
additional flexibility and housing options; 3) ensure the ,requirements are -up -to -date with the current
needs of the community; and 4) to ensure the ordinance ;is in conformance with the 2030 . Comprehensive
Policy Plan. Ms. Perkins :noted the majority of the revisions are more simply placed within -a table
format, rather than as lists. She also noted the proposed amendments `have been through a number of
discussions and work sessions, along with Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors discussions.
Ms. Perkins said that throughout the entire process, the staff has worked closely with members of the
engineering an'd design community; as well as local developers; to ensure that everyone would be
satisfied with the final product.
Ms. Perkins proceeded to review the changes for the Commission, beginning with Part
402, Introduction and District Regulations. She stated there were revisions to the intent, as well as some
permitted and conditional uses; a number of changes were made to the gross density and multi- family
housing tables; there are open space and = recreational facility requirements; and there are additions for
heights for , structures not . currently listed under the individual district requirements. Ms. Perkins noted
that staff worked closely with the Department of Parks & Recreation. to establish a table of recreational
facility requirements that was satisfactory to them,
Ms. Perkins said the most significant changes are in Part 402 for dimensional
requirements for each of the housing types allowed in the RP District. She said there are considerable
format changes and minor changes to the Single- Family Detached :Rural Traditional, the Detached
Traditional, and the Detached'Urban'housing types and setbacks for unroofed decks, stoops, landings, and
similar features are addressed. There are changes to Single - Family Detached Cluster, the Zero Lot Line,
as well as a number of changes to the Single - Family Small Lot housing types which include front and
back setbacks for unroofed features; as well as an allowance for front setback reduction when rear alleys
are utilized. Ms. Perkins stated there- is also removal of some housing types that have never been. used,
such as the Duplex, the Atrium .House, and the Weak -Link Townhouse. There are changes to the Multi -
plex housing type and a number of changes have been, made to 'Townhouses, such as back -to -back
Townhouses. She said another major- change is the increase in the structure :height from 35-' to 40,' A
number of changes were made to Garden Apartments to allow for a ,greater number of prototypes. Ms.
Perkins :described the addition of 'a new housing type called, Multi - family Residential Buildings, which
will only be permitted in areas designated in the, Comprehensive Policy Plan, such as neighborhood
villages, urban centers, or areas planned `for high- density residential. uses. She said there,.were minor
changes to the Age - Restricted Multi- Family housing, type.
Ms. 'Perkins next reviewed Part 203, Changes to the Buffer and Landscaping
Requirements. Those changes included modifications to the plant tables, slight modifications to the
planting procedures, residential separation buffers, and road- efficiency buffer _revisions. She next
proceeded to review the Part 101 and 201 Changes to the Definition's and Supplemental Use Regulations.
She ,said the primary changes here are a new definition for building height, a new definition of Multi-
Family 'Boil ding, and some revisions to the setback requirements to correspond to the proposed changes
contained under the dimensional requirements.
In conclusion, Ms. Perkins reiterated that the RP District changes are to make the
ordinance easier to understand, to provide additional flexibility, to bring the regulations up -to- date with
the current:needs of the community, and:to conform to the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Chairman. Wilmot inquired if the Board of Supervisors had made any changes when they
forwarded the 'proposed amendment for public hearing. Ms. Perkins replied. no; the proposed amendment
is consistent with what the Planning Commission saw during their previous discussion.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 29»
Minutes of January 2, 2013
11—
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for ;citizen comments,. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Thomas commented on the great. amount of work the staff put into these
revisions. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to
the RP (Residential Perfonnance) Zoning District. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates
and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the proposed amendments to `the Frederick County Code, Chapter165, Zoning,
Article IV. Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District, 165-
402.1 Intent, 1.65- 402.02 Permitted Uses, 165- 402.03 Conditional.Uses; 1.65- 402.04 Number of Uses
Restricted, 165 - 402.05' Gross Density, 165- 402.06. Multifamily Housing; 1.65- 402.07 Open Space
Requirements, 165 - 402.08 Recreation Facilities, 165- 402.09 Dimensional Requirements, 165 - 402.10
Phased Development;, Article I1. Supplementary. Use Regulations Parking; Buffers and Regulations for
Specific Uses, ,Part 203 Buffers, and landscaping, 1,65- 203.01 .Landscaping Requirements, 165- 203.02
Buffer and Screening Requirements, Part 201 Supplementary Use Regulations, 165- 20;1.02 Setback
Requirements; Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General
provisions, 165 - 101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions will update the Residential
Performance District.
Note: Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting,)
A proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV,
Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165- 401.07,
Setback Requirements. The proposed revision is to include a setback exemption for accessory
structures .in the RA (Rural Areas) District, if it is the first structure to be constructed on a
property.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to include a
setback exemption for accessory structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District; if it is the first structure to be
constructed on a property. Ms. Perkins explained that typically„ in the RA District, the dwelling would be
the primary structure and the accessory structure would have the lesser setbacks (15' side /rear) than the
dwelling. However, under the current ordinance, if a structure other than a dwelling is constructed on the
property first, it would be considered the primary structure and be subject to the primary setbacks (50-
100' .side /rear).
Ms. Perkins said the proposed amendment would allow the construction of one non-
habitable accessory structure With the lesser setbacks, prior to the construction of the principal structure.
This accessory structure could not contain any residential uses prior to the construction of the primary use
and could not exceed 650 square feet in size.
Ms. Perkins noted this ,item was discussed by the Board of Supervisors at a work session
back on November 14, 2012; the Board believed the structure size should be :increased from 500 feet to
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2934
Minutes of January 2,
2013
1'2—
650 feet in size. After this, revision, 'the. Board discussed the amendment again at their meeting on
December 12, 2012 and sent the amendment forward for public hearing.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot. closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates said he raised an issue with this amendment to the DRRC
Development Review & Regulations Committee) back in the Spring; he said the intent was for a garden
shed and to be non - residential. Commissioner Oates said he was comfortable with approximately 350-
400 square feet; but the DRRC decided. on 500 square feet in size: Commissioner Oates believed the
basic amendment was a good :idea and should be implemented;. however, lie was concerned that
increasing the square footage to 650 square feet was as large as a full -size garage and created a ,potential
for someone to move into it,and.convert it to a small house.
Commissioner Tho_rras recalled that during the work session discussion, the 650 square
feet was. based on a standard building size, but he couldn't recall what type of shed they had in mind.. He
said a 20 'X 30' structure would provide 600 square feet; at 650, it could store a couple tractors.
Some additional discussion took place; members thought the revision should be
implemented and amended at a'later time, if needed. Commissioner Oates made am-notion to recommend
approval of the proposed amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and was
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning,
Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts; Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 1657
40.1.07, Setback Requirements. The proposed revision is to include a ,setback exemption for accessory
structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District, if it is the first structure to be constructed on a property.
Note: Commissioners Lemieux and Crockett were absent from the meeting;)
CANCELLATION OF THE JANUARY 16, 2013 MEETING
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no action items pending for the Planning
Commission's January 16,.201
3
meeting.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to cancel the Planning Commission's January 16,
20`13 meeting. Thinmotionwas seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2935
Minutes: of January 2, 201'3
13-
PLANNING" COMMISSION ANNUAL RETREAT
Chairman Wilmot announced that the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat has been
scheduled for February 9, 2013, to be held at the Holiday Inn Winchester Historic Gateway at 333 Front
Royal Pike (Route 522 South). Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that Commission members
will receive an agenda approximately ten days prior to the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates
and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
JL ,e M. ilmot; Chairman
Eric R jLawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2936
Minutes of January 2, 2013