PC 07-17-13 Meeting MinutesMEETING;MINUTES..
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTV''PLANNING COMMISSION
1 Held'.in the Board Room. of "tlie Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on July 17, 20.13'.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, 'Cliairman7Me'mber at Large ,Roger L_ Thomas; Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, :Opequon District, Gary R. 'Oates, ;Stonewall District; Lawrence R.
Am rog , Shawnee District, H`. Paige Manuel, Shawnee,:Distnet ; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District;
Charles E: Triplett, Gainesbo 0,,,,Dist21Ct; Greg L:. Unger,, Back Creek'D strict; J. Rhodes,lVlarston, Buck
Creek District; 'Christopher -M. Mohn, Red Bud ;Charles, F. Dunlap, Red Bud..Di'stnct;; Rod
Y Y, _ P _.. Williams, Count Attorre Robert Hess Board of Supervisors, Liaison and Jennifer Beatley; Winchester
P. lannmg,Commission- Li_ai'son
ABSENT: J. Stanley Cr ockett,'Stonewall District
STAFF - PRESENT.- Eiic R. 'Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
a.
Director;; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning &,Subdivision. Administrator.; Candice .E Perkins, Senior Planner; :and
Renee `S. Ailotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called to order the July f7, 20,43 meeting of the Frederick County
Plaririmng Commission at 7 00 p::m.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA,
Upon;motion made by Commissioner Oates, and ,seconded;byCommissioner, Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's:meetmg as presented:
RESOLUTION.O F
APn'
r
PREGIATION.FOR' KEVIN CROSEN
Chairman. Wilmot announced that Mr Kevin Crosen has resigned from the, Planning,
Commission, after a full'terrn of °four: years., Chairman Wilmot thanked Mr.. Crosen for., l is contribufion
andshe,.read'a Resolution of.Appreciation,frorn the Plamiing, Commission.
Frederick„County, Plahning• Cor
Minutes of`July 17.,-201.3
Mr. Ctosen sa` id he. has, immense respec'Vf6r the -,me ' rs;Fof'the Plarmimbre- - _Commission,
for the: am ti '- -and , d votion iheygi e . 16, provide gui danc e't o-Efederick County. Mr: Crosen said
there is a tremendous, amount: of 'effort and work;, aIid k'e§p(5ciallykecogm --20 those: members who; have
I
JY h on AN Commission : for many, ears. He believed the County, has good ip inleadershi "i ts Planningi.
Commission., Mr: Cr6sen - said he1ea-m-ed 6.Jot while on the'Planning , C6mmission.and he- was ,glad to he a
part 'of'the,Commission.,,Rei, thanked ,,the ,Commission 'Ag' amfor their support: r.
MINUTES
v
Upon motion. made:,by.Commissioner Oates and -socon 000 by Commissioner Thomas,, the
minutes iof the June 19, 20I'3, meeting: were undnimoushy approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comoirehensive,'Plans &ftograms Co nmiftee, (CPPQ -- 7/08J3,Mtg.,
Commissioner 'Oates reported the CPPC discussed the Southern Frederick:' Area Plan,
which cdfiibmesT the Tacker Woods - Land Use Plan and 'thd Route 277 Triangle Plan together, n 0
Qo1rim'Wsi0ii-Of Oates said Deputy VIa n-n'ihg. -Director Michael _T' Ruddy, laid :out an aggressive, tim
I
el, line
believed. 'it, could be met Commissioneris'sioner Oates -committees will need' be formed; similar .and te said -,,,cciffirnittee Ao Simi
what -,was: , ,d,done,f6rthe Sensen y 'Road Project, and the entire plan will ,-bg'dbroken down into smaller parts. .
Commissioner Oates said Ihe;_'CPP`G'vifI_be looking for volunteers to serve on the subcommittees and
anyone ,wfio `may be interested; .pleasetease cptita It- the Plannift 9 Staff,
City, of Winchester PIAniiihp_..Cdnfini9siom— 7/16/131IMtg;
Winchester annin& ,Commission, Liaison, Jennifer Bentley,, 'reported the CityCityiyPh
Planning Corqmi§,siq#,'rqcorftftiend'e'd,at)DroyaI of ihejaonin of.,44 acres PAperinill. Road, whichibh is
the e 7raiMobA.Abeic' Fde Plqnt site, ,-fromM2toB2.;,th recommended ,apppy4,'of Tpzoifi6g eight acresqy
onjubalTarlyN,, lj'ey;Av-e-nuefr'.o--m--,L,i'mited,'Iiidiigtrial,14,ighR'esidenti'al,.aridHighWd.y,t-ommercialtoB2
District wffh,Plqnned Units' Development', Overlay for',an, upscale apartment -,project l with_ I
406,
t4p, mqn s
on -1,4hat'laftv, DiiVe'i, and they 'inhiated-,,two, zo -n'i4g,,,ordiiia-nee iath&iidmefitg' orie Ao amend .the zoning
641hance pertaining , to r,6staura'nts, and -eiit'brtai=eni.-establi'shments- and lhi- -second xVagA6 rez6hejhe
Yajd,,ajQ ' B& '16 Avenue M apply-to .8'6g, I enue to boln d in, the Co 2orEnhancement bi'stnict, which apply
properties ilqqg,Berr, yvi:lteAI I - v6ffifel She,sI [i- d th1e Pjanhh-g Co'h missi on:also tabled A tezoning,ordinAhce:
If6r the histoncal Coc6-Co*fa, plant on Valley Avpqge until Aqgqst,- and they1fad one adminikrative,
A u - f6 izati irnprovements`to the Southside Church,,of Christ to, improveparking and traffic flow.
Ms;, Beatley said City Planning. CoMmissibn"s, next W 6fk ,session will he August 13
13 ,and,,the n*extmeeff g uis,,sohed ledforAugust20,"20,11p
Frederick County,-Planning;Commission Page
Mintifes of "July 1-7;'2QB
3
Estab ishment.of New Development Consults Committee.
Commissioner Charles F, Dunlap :informed everyone, of the establishment of a new
committee, called the D`evelopinenf Consults: Committee., Commissioner_. - Dunlap said this new committee
Will 'be made: up of professionals from °both the County 'and the private sector, such as architects and
planners;, etc., with the purpose of° over-viewing the planning process from a global perspeetye:;
Questions, will be asked sudi,as; ;is'the .County's planning, process gettiing,in the way, or-i& it'helpful`, or is
there, room for improvement; or openness ,for suggestions.. Mr. Dunlap explained this will be somewhat
of an informal-process 'in ,that members will communicate eleetromcally ,and not - necessarily just have
face -to -face meetings. He said the Planning Department has 'set up a web "site where members can,
communicate ideas back and forth to each other. Mn, Dunlap,; noted the committee has received -its first
assignment, which is' to, get all of the° ,resumes and contact information up =to-,dater
Committee Appointment.
Chairman Wilmot announced the appointment of ..Mr. Tony_ Morelli from the Opequon
District to the,Comprehensive :Plans &.Programs Committee (CPPG).,
Ctizen:Comments
Chairman Wilmot, called for citizen 'conimenfs on any subject not currently on the
Planning• Commission's ",agenda: Noon e .came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen
comments.portion;of"the meeting.
PUBLIC `HEARING,..
Conditional., Use ,Permit. #03=13 of Verizon - Wireless and Bertha McIIw'ee Trust .for a...195400t
telecommunications tower and equipment' shelter at `2250 Back Mountain Road ,(Rt. 600). The
property is identified wiih,P I.N. 49 -A -28 in the Back Creek Magisterial.,District.
Action Recommended Approval with Conditions & ,Submissions
Zoning,& Subdivision, Administrator; Mark R. Cl eran- ,.;reported the! ubject property 'i&
surrounded; by RA (Rural Areas) zoned properties, "except to 'the: west `which is, R5 (Residential.
Recreational :CommunrGy,',) District; and. the land uses are ;residential and vacant. Mr...Cheran stated. they
Comprehensive Policy; Plan : identifes, the subject property within the Shawneeland/ North Mountain,
Fiedenck Gourity,Plann'ing'Commission, Page.:2988
Minutes of,-July 17, 2013;
q
Rural Community Center; :however; ,this 'area is to remain rural and is `not a part of any :current land use
studies. As a part of the conditional use permit process, comments are requested from various "reviewing
agencies. Mr. Cheran stated the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) had. identified -three
potentially significant structures within the immediate area of the subject site and one of the structures is
located on site. He said the HRAB, requested the applicant prepare a. detailed preliminary information
form. (PIF) for the subject property; but should consider.a PIF for the surrounding area as well, because
this! area could be a :potential Rural Historic District. 'Furthermore; this PIF should be included as part of
the conditional use permit application submitted to the Planning Commission and' the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Cheran..said the :PIF had not been submitted; therefore, was riot included within the
Planning•Cominission's,agenda packet. He.said he spoke. with the applicant and the applicant: is working.
on 'the PIF; he said the applicant would explain to the Commission where they are in this process. Mr.
Cheran next read a list of conditions.; should the Planning Commission find,this use to be appropriate.
Tracy L, Themak, of Donohue & Stearns, PLC; was the zoning attorney representing
Verizon''s application. Ms. Themak noted the RF (Radio Frequency) Propagation Maps and the
Demonstration of Need for this site ,are; enclosed. in the Planning Commission's agenda packet. She said
the discussion. with Mr. Cheran centered primarily on the PIF requested by the HRAB and it is being
developed and will'be4 submitted. 'Ms.. Themak said the applicant; understands this would be a condition of
the Commission's reco.mmendafion of approval. Ms. Themak said the applicant also worked. with the
staff on "a possible collocation, tower. She said an AT &T tower located about 1.89 miles away vas
considered andpropagation maps were generated. Although collocation is the carrier's preference, rather
than a 'land site where theywould have to invest money to construct; th'is.AT&T tower site unfortunately
would not solve"the coverage gap for them in their targeted area. Ms.. Themak said the AT &T site may
accommodate them in a different search ring at a later time; however, it does not solve their problem at
this.location.
Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Themak if the applicant completely understood
Conditions " #5 (In the event a telecommunications tower is noVerected within 12 months of the approval
of this conditional use permit '(CUP), the CUP will be deemed Invalid.) and #6 (Any expansion or
modification of this use will require a. new CUP.). Ms. Themak said yes; `Verizon does understand those.
conditions.
Commissioner Oates inquired if the applicant would have the PIF prior to the Board of
Supervisors' meeting., Ms. Themak replied'yes. She, said they are scheduled to be heard before the Board
on,August-14 and they will "havethe PIF in time for the Board to review.
Chairman 'Wilmot commented that a letter from the engineer addressing tower
circumference was not attached, as required for °the setback` waiver request. Ms. Themaki said they are at
exactly half the :height of the tower from the property line; therefore, they are not required to submit an
engineer's :letter She said if.they were below half, they would be".required to submif, Ms. Themak said
they •typically show the collapse: zone; regardless of setback, and will provide that •information for the
Commission. She said the tower height is 197' and, 98.5' is the waiver requested for the : setback. 'Ms.
Themak stated these structures are designed to collapse on themselves and not topple over. She said she
would have'their engineers,provide'this information.
Frederick County Planning Commission. Page.2989
Minutes ofildly 17, 200
5-
Commissioner Kenney asked to seethe location and elevation: of'the tower. Mr. Cheran
pointed out the location, noting the tower is, approximate l°y'260"from the Rappahannock right -of -way and
over 1,000' from Route 600.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about the distance to the closest residence and Mr.
Cheran. replied the closest residence was slightly under 300'. Mr. Cheran added there were two adjacent
vacant. properties.
Chairman Wilmot opened. the public. hearing for. citizen comments. The following person
came forward to speak:
Mr. Hugh
VanMeterI Back Creek District, introduced himself as the Chairman of the
Shawneeland Advisory Committee. Mn- VanMeter requested a copy of the Verizon information packet
for the Shawneeland Advisory Committee and one for the Shanwneeland Manager. The.applicant said she
would provide a pap_ er copy and. Mr.. Lawrence, Planning Director; said the information was also
accessible online.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the °public comment portion of
the,hearing.,
Commissioner -Unger stated that cell service was needed in this particular area and he
made a .motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the condifions read by the" staff along with the
submission of a Preliminary .Information .Form (PIF) requested by the HRAB and the submission of
information regarding the collapse - zone.. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick ,County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #03 -13 of Verizon Wireless and 'Bertha McItwee Trust for a 195 -foot
tel tower 'arid equipment shelter at 2250 Back Mountain Road (Rt. 600) with the
submission of a Preliminary InformationYbrni (P,IF) requested by the'Historic Resources Advisory Board
HRAB), the - submission of information regarding the collapse zone, and''the following conditions: .
J. All review agency comments. and requirements shall he complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available, for.collocating,,personal wireless, services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County:
4., The tower shall be-removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment
of operation. .
5. In the. event a telecoinmuriications tower is not erected within, 12 rnbliths of the approval of the
conditional ;use,permit, the - conditional use permit will be deemed 'invalid.
6. Any expansion or modi'ficatidn.ofthis use will require a new conditional use permit.
Note: Commissioner Crockett; was absent from.the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning, Commission Page 2990
Minutes of July 17, 2013
6-
Conditional Use Permit #0443 of Tracy Alt for a revision to the requirements under Conditional
Use Permit . #01 -11 enabling an 'In -Home Family Day Care Facility at .110 O'Brien's Circle in
Shenandoah Hills. The purpose of -this . request is to increase the number of children, being: cared
for at any given time from ten to 12: The property is identified with P.I.N. 55F -1 =3 -140 in the Red
Bud,Magisterial District..
Action= Recommend Approval with : Conditions
Zoning & Subdivision. Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported, the adjoining properties
are zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and theuseisresidential. Mr.
the
said the request is
fora revision to the requirements, under Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #0,1 -11 approved by the Board of
Supervisors on February 9, 20.11, .enabling an.In -home Family Day Care Facility. He said the request is
for the purpose of expanding the CUP ,to allow for 12 children, rather'than ten,. being. eared for at any one
time. Mr. Cheran noted with the approval of a new CUP, the Department of' Social Service& has granted
approval to allow'Ms. Alt to increase her capacity to a maximum of 12 children.
Mr. Cheran, added that staff has. received a letter from an. adjoining - property owner, .dated
July $,, 2013, stating several - concerns regarding this day care operation.. Mr. Cheran next read a list of
recommended conditions, should the Commission find the request to be appropriate.
Commissioner M61m said the letter expressed concerns about traffic on the street. He
asked:if the County had recently - received any other complaints about traffic . or parking from other owners
along the street or within the neighborhood. Mr. Cheran replied that staff has not received any other
complaints involving this day. c "are facility from either the Department of Social. Services or other
neighboring residents. 'Regarding parking, Mr. Cheran said-the streetsvithin,th'is older neighborhood are
narrow.
Commissioner Thomas referred to Condition #6; ",,..there shall be no more than, one
employee working. at, the day care at any time;" and 'inquired what was the basis for that determination.
Commissioner Thomas commented -that: depending, on the age of the children, only one or two adults
taking :care of 12 children could, be challenging.
Mrs. `Tracy Alt, the applicant, replied that a point'_sysiem is used by the .Department of
Social. Services to determine the number of children she could have under her care and it is based on the
age. of the children:
Commissioner Dunlap said 'he drove through the neighborhood and observed that the
streets are_indeed narrow and do,not have curb and. gutter. .Commissioner:Dunlap asked Mrs. Alt if her
clients' arrival and pick -up times were staggered, or if everyone was arriving at the _same time. He
believed there would be a parking issue; which was described in the letter from the adjoining property
owner, `if all the clients arrived at the same time. Mrs. Alt said the arrival times vary and one parent
comes with three children in. her vehicle and a few other parents come with two children: Mrs. Alt said
mosttimes „it worksout okay; bathe driveways are close together.
FredeT14- County. Planning. Commission Page 2991
Minutes o0uuly i'7, 2013
7-
Chairman `Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished 'to speak regarding this
CUP: No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
Bearing.
Commissioner Oates said he was generally supportive of this CUP with 12 children, but
believed this should be the maximum number of children and lie could not support any more than 12 on
this part cular;street. Mrs. Alt said the. Department of,Social Services will riot approve any more than 12
children at a, family day home. :She said she is at the maximum limitwith the 12 children.
Commissioner `Duinlap made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the
conditions read by the staff. This motion. was seconded by Commissioner'Mohn and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission .does mhereby`recomend.approval of
Conditional Use Permit #04 =13 of Tracy Alt for a 'revision to the requirements under Conditional Use
Permit #01 -11,, enabling an In -Home Family Day Care Facility at 110 O'Brien 's Circle in Shenandoah
Hills, by increasing the number of children being cared for at any given- time from ten to 12, with the
following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. Hours of operation shall be:perrnined from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m:, Monday through.Friday.
3. The applicant shall satisfy'the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social
S-ervices.and the County of Frederick.
4. No business sign, associated with this conditional use, permit shall be erected on the property..
5. Other than those. children residing on the property, there shall' be no more than 1'2 children, being_
cared for at an given time.
6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one employee
working at the day care at any fime.
7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit.
Note: Commissioner-C. rockett was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick .County Planning Commission Page 2992
Minutes of July 17, 2013
S-
Consideration of an amendment to the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvement :Plan (CIP) for Frederick
County. The CIP is a prio'ritUed' list of eapital' projects requestedbyvarious County departments
and agencies. The CIP is .created, as an informational ,document to; assist in the development of the
County's annual budget. .Once adopted, the C11P.is a: component of ',the 2030 Comprehensive.Policy
Plan. Frederick County seeks to amend the current CIP to Add one project, a new County /School
Roard Administration Building, to be located generally within the County's Urban. Development
kee"a.
Action — Recommended Denial
Deputy Planning,- Director., Michael T. Ruddy, .reported this public hearing item is an
amendment to-the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to add one project; a new County /School.
Board Administration'bulding, to be-located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. Mr.
Ruddy explained that with the addition. of this joint project, it is necessary. to 'remove an existing project
from the CIP, the.Frederick County Public Schools Administration Office Expansion and Renovation.
Mr. Ruddy rioted' that previously, the Comprehensive: Plans & Programs Committee
CPPC), the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, reviewed and: endorsed the
2013- 20.14 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). He said the Planning Commission expressed their belief
the CIP was consistent with, the, 2030 "Comprehensive Plan and -the Board of Supervisors,' approval
occurred on January 23, 2013, following a public hearing.
Mr. Ruddy, said "this new project consists of, a County /School Board Administration
Building, to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. The Capital Cost of the
project is to 'be determined, as, is the construction schedule. He said the inclusion of this capital facility
will allow .for improvements to general :governmental facilities and 'services for the benefit of the residents
of Frederick County and will :meet, the increasing; need for office - space;, meeting space, and government
sery ices in an accessible location.
Commissioner- Oates :asked why this request had- not ,gone before the Comprehensive
Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC), subsequently skipping over =any discussion, and why it has ,gone to
public'hearing so quickly. Mr.. Ruddy replied that the, CIP in its entirety'has been well vetted through the
CPPC, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors through the regular process.- So with this
one addition, it wa -s felt to be appropriate to ,move it forward directly to;'the Plaiming Commission. He
said the Planning Commission could make, their evaluation, solely on this one project.
Commissioner Oates said there is no land use plan addressing the location of a. new
County building. Mr. Ruddy rioted the. Comprehensive Plan is a, guide %which provides a general land use
direction; and .general ;future guidance as to what 'the County would like to .see and_ where. Therefore, fora
facility serving; the vast majority of the residents. of Frederick County; an appropriate location would
appear to be- withini the Urban Areas of Frederick County.
Coinrnissioner Oates commented that the ,proposed administrative building -is now being
considered as a .joint administration and - school board structure. He said the current administration
building is I00,000'square feet„ and the school board's building has 30,000 square feet with anticipation of
expansion:, Commissioner .Oates inquired if the County is considering a joint building, consisting of 'a
couple hundred, thousand' square feet to accommodate both expansions by putting these two entities
together. Mr., Ruddy replied'he did, not have involvement in this level of discussion for this project at
this-time Mr. Ruddy said the'Board- received a request for this project and they have moved it forward to
Frederick Gounty,Planning Commission Page 2993
Minutes. -of July 17, 2013
9-
the Public Works Committee, who will most-,likely be dealing with this over the next couple montim -Mr.
Ruddy recognized, however,' ' that placing this project on the CIP was good planning, as well as
considering its, conformance with the:Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Oates expressed his concern that-,the ,proposed project should first have
been incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Commissioner Oates said along with the school
board building, there is a need =to consider transportation, water'and sewer; and: what location the structure
should be built. Re said the Conimi'ssion has no idea where the structureis to be located other than the
Urban Area. Commissioner Oates said he was having difficulty seeing where it is written within the
Comprehensive Plan showing support for this CEP request.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for
Anyone who wished to speak to come forward. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the
public comment portion of"the'hearing.
Commissioner Oates did. not believe he could support therequest because he could not
find where the Comprehensive Plan_ supported this. Commissioner Oates' -said it's not that he wouldn't
support: moving the admiristra"tion building, into the County, but the Commission, would be, putting
something forward without,a leg io.stand on, in his opinion.
Commissioner Mohn agreed with Commissioner Oates' comments. He pointed out that
not all parts of the Urban Development Area are equal in terms of their capacity to serve a facility.
Commissioner Mohn said.he would whole - heartily, agree it would be far more helpful to be able to at least
narrow down the area being considered for this proposed facility.
Commissioner Unger'also agreed with the comments made by his fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Unger commented about the public's reaction to these issues.
Chairman Wilmot commented that the CIP` is basically ah advisory document in terms of
capital facilities and the construction thereof. She said the role of the CIP is not to dictate that something
has to be, or should be, -in a, specific location. Chairman Wilmot did agree; ;however, that the request
should have had the opportunityto be discussed by the CPPC.
Commissioner Oates next made a motion to deny the amended 20.13 -2014 Capital
Improvements Plan request because it` does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. This motion was
seconded`by Commissioner Ambrogi:and was passed by the following voter
YES' JO DENY): Unger, Marston, Ambrog , Manuel, Oates, Kenney; Triplett, Dunlap, Mohn
NO: Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot
Note;. Commissioner Crockett was.absent.from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission. Page 2994
Minutes of July 17, 2013
to-
Consideration of an Amendment 'to, the ,Frederick County. Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I,
General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165 -
101.02'Definitions and Word Usage; Article H Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers;
and Regulations for Specific Uses; Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, :165- 204.27
Temporary Family Health Care Structures; Article TV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part
401, (RA) Rural Areas District, 1:65- 4.01.02'Permitted',Uses, Part 402, (RP) Residential in
District. This amendment is a revision to the.,Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include
standards for the inclusion' of temporary family health care structures (MEDCottage) as a
permitted use.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to the zoning
ordinance to, include "temporary family 'health care structures," also termed, "MedCottages, as a
permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas); RP (Residential Performance); R5 (R esidential.Recreational), ,and
R4 (Residential Planned Community) Districts. `Ms. Perkins stated the Code of Virginia requires
localities to permit these :health care, structures as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning
districts where single- family dwellings are permitted. She said the:_sta..ff has added this use as a permitted
use in the districts specified and has also drafted a number of supplerriental use regulations which are
consistent with the State Code.
Ms. Perkins said this proposal was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review &
Regulations Committee) on April 25, :2013, it was discussed by the Planning Commission on May 15,
20'13; and the Board of'Superyisors discussed the proposed amendment at then meeting on June 1.2, 201'3.
The Board of Supervisors had.no changes and directed the staff to schedule the proposed amendment for
public hearing.
Commissioner Thomas commented if this structure:is limited to no more than 300 square
feet, and an offaite constructed building is brought in, it would probably be 12 -feet wide. Therefore,
there could be a 12,by -20, a 12- by -24, or a 12- by -30, but any size greater than the 12- by -24, the 300
square feet is ,exceeded. Ms. 'Perkins "said the 300 square feet is' mandated by the Virginia State Code.
Ms. Perkins added there -is currently only one company which manufactures these buildings out of Salem
and she believed the State Code was modeled after that particular unit.
Commissioner Unger inquired what health system the structures are connected to when
they lare brought in. ,M& Perkins replied they are: connected to whatever system the primary structure has.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone
who wished to speak to ,come: forward.. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the
public comment portion of the "hearing.
Commissioner Kenney-said the DRRC was somewhat concerned about the appearance of
these structures until slides 'were, shown of the building. Commissioner Kenney. said the structures are
very` attractive arid, will; blend in, well with, adjoining homes. He thought the designers of the structures
did a. very good job, and "this, swayed the DRRC.
Frederick County Planning•Comniission Page 2995
Minutes of;July 17, 2013
Commissioner Unger `commented this i's :a requirement of the .State Code that Frederick
County has not recognized until now. He< said' Frederick County is trying to bring its ordinances up to
d'ate..
Commi'ssion'er Thomasmade a motion to "recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
amendment. This motion was, .seconded by Commissioner Oates and.unanimously passed.:
BE IT. RESOLVED, the Frederick_ County.Pla-nning Commission,does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of an, amendment to the Frederick County Code; Chapter 165, Zoning, Article 1, General.
Provisions, Amendments, and 'Conditional Use Permits, Part ,101 General Provisions, 165 - 101,02
Definitions and Word Usage;, Article IT Supplementary Use:, Regulations; Parking, Buffers, and
Regulations for Specific Uses; Part 204 Additional Regulations `for Specif c Uses, 165- 204.27 Temporary
Family, Health Care Structures; Article IV Agricultural and 'R, esidential Districts, Part 401, (RA) Rural
Areas District, 165- 401.02 Permitted:- Uses, Part 402, (RP) Residential Performance District. This
amendment.is a revision to the Frederick County. Zoning Ordinance to include standards for.the inclusion
of temporary family health-care - structures (MEDCottage),as a permitted use.
COMMISSION ACTION ITEM
Master Development ;,Plan #0143 for 'Shenandoah, submitted by:
I
Bowman Consulting Group to
revise Master Development'Plan #03 =07 which is Jocated on the western;.side of Front Royal Pike
Route- 522 South),• south of Fairfax ,Pike (Route 277) , and east of Hudson Hollow Road (Route
63.6)., Existing, primary access to this site is located on Front Royal. Pike (Route 522 South) via Lake
Frederick Drive. The properties are identified by PJ.N s 87 -A403, 87- A -103C, and 87 -A -102 in. the
Opequon Magisterial District:
Action. Severing Tabled for 45 Days
Commissioner -Mohn said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this
particular item, due to a potential conflict of interest.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins first provided a brief overview of what a. master
d'evelopmerit plan' (MDP) constitutes. Briefly, Ms. Perkins stated a MDP is a compliance document,
which provides the Planning; Commission, the Board of Supervisors, =and the public with a view of what a
developer is proposing to. construct. on their property. She said that prior to a MDP coming before -the
Commission and the .Board, it is'thoroughly, vetted,by, the Planning Staff, and all. reviewing agencies and it
y county codes.. Therefore; there is noisnotbroughtforwardjuntilitmeetsall. of the agent comments and count
opportunity for the Commission or Board to make changes or to recommend the applicant make
amendments:to the,plan.
Ms. Perkins reported this MDP for Shenandoah depicts the development. of
approximately 926.27 acres,zoned R5; (Residential Recreational Community) pistrict with a total.of 2,1.30
residential- dwelling units, which includes the 253 platted lots within the subdivision. Ms. Perkins pointed
out ;this development was originally, rezoned in 1975 and, subsequently, there are -no proffers associated
with this project. She said `it was originally master planned in 1 -991,, it was revised in 2001,, and then
administratively revised in 2007. .
Frederi&ICounty Planning Commission Page 2996
Minutes of July .17., 2013:
12-
Ms. Perkins explained the primary purpose for,the MDP revision is to remove. thei age-
restricted requirement for the majority of the residential units, located on the east ,side, of Lake Frederick.
Ms: Perkins said the .age- restricted' component and the private streets associated with it were approved in
the 200,1 MDP.. She said under. the .new MDP,. the, area on., the west side of Lake Frederick will consist
entirely of age- restricted dwellings (a total of 517 units) and will continue to be served by private streets.
The land area. east of Lake Frederick will consist ;primarily of traditional residential units, specifically, a
mix of single- familydetached and,attached (townhouse),and will be served by public streets. , She
rioted an additional component of the MDP revision is a request to: the Board of Supervisors to severe the
residential component from the:commercial component which,are ownedby two separate entities._
Ms. Perkins concluded her presentation` by notting "the MDP. for Shenandoah'is consistent
with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, it is in conformance, with the Comprehensive Plan, and it
is being ,presented to the Planning Commission as an informational item only.. However; the staff is
seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors only on the
applicant's request to severe the residential and commercial land :bays.
Commissione,rT,homas. questioned what. the impacts would be and-the significance, if the
commercial: area `was, severed from the residential. Commissioner Thomas recalled when the; Commission
initially considered the age,-restricted; MDP and how there was considerable discussion around the
numbers of potential school students. He said if the age_ restricted requirement is removed, 1 „500
traditional family houses could generate about 100 school -age children resulting in the need for an
additional school., 'Commissioner Thomas didn't believe there was a school in that part of the County that
could handle another 100 students -and not have an impact. He said there was also- considerable
discussion on the commercial area, whetherthere would be a fire station, and the possibility of land being
donated to the County for- an emergency response station. He commented this area is essentially a small
town and there could be .a significant impact on roads, commercial facilities, and emergency facilities by
removing the age.-restricted requirement and severing the commercial area, from the residential.
Ms: Perkins responded by noting there are no proffers or phasing associated with this
development., Ms. Perkins stated that. ,with a MDP, additional requirements cannot be placed on the
applicant and any impacts will Iave. to be absorbed by the existing transportation, schools, and utilities.
She. said the Commissi'on.may recall from the previous 2001-2007 MDP, there-were a number of notes on
the MDP pertaining to this development; however, notes on the MDP are not enforceable. She said the
residential and commercial components were planned together a number`of years ago and, obviously, the
residential is needed in order to develop the commercial. Ms. Perkins= commented the two parties have
agreements as to what's required to be installed. She said the commercial. portion already has access, but
the applicant :will have to confirm who has,,responsibi'lity for the public, utilities. She noted that the
commercial ;property will havethe ability to fully develop on its own.
Chairman Wilmot asked Ms. Perkins if there were other examples of a "severing” that
took place. within the `county. Ms. Perkins recalled two recent occasions, the Snowden Bridge
development and: prior, to .that, the Lynnhaven/Sovereign Village /Twin Lakes 'Overlook was severed. as
well.
Frederick' County Planning Commission Page 2997
Minutes of July 17, 2013
13:-
Mn. Thomas Moore, (Ty),. - Lawson, with Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., came :forward on,
behalf of Lansdowne Development Group; LLC, to answer,questions from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner 'Thomas asked `Mr.. Lawson; if the •developer would. consider: placing .a
phasing plan on the residential development so the. `.Countycould have a plan to accommodate -the
additional school: children arid:;othevimpacts that will" be generated. Mr, Lawson,replied when this project
was first approved, rezoned, and entitled, that was when those ,types of things would have .been generated:
Mr: _Lawson said''this amendment is simply to change the streets slightly and the character, from private to
public. Mr. Lawson said it wasn't physically possible to build aid deliver l ,500 homes m a. short period.
oFtime and with the •rea_lities of'ihe-econorr y; he. di'd not think ;it •was feasible: Mr. Lawson believed, there
would be: considerable dialogue: with -the County as this project, moves forward.
Mr. Ray Smith; the manager of Dogwood .Development Group, LLC, the manager -and
owner of.Wheatlands,,LLC, said his-group brought. iliis MDP through n2:00:1. and changed it from w. hatq f
was, under Fred :Glaize:• -aid Jim Bowman, to what it is now. Mr;; Smith said he first learned about this
application on ;Saturday evening,, July 13„ 2013; after :an adjoining property owner's letter' from the
County- washreceved by!one of his°representatiyes on July $ 20j1.3 Mr: Smith said he immediately wrote
a letter of concern to the •County, Attorney., Rod Williams on Sunday,. Mn Smith said his group sold 'the
residential',port 'on. of this property, to Oxbridge Development in 2064 and has not had any dia_ logue with
them during all this time He; said someone is now asking to separate, his property from the residential
portion.without his knowledge ;Mr ;S "mith was °unsure what affect-this severing may have on•his property
and' if it w`ould;negatively' affect his property. He, wanted: to be; assured ,that if his property is, severed: info
a separate; "independent'MOP, that his. zoning- and entitlements would not be affected:, He• had a number
of eoncerns:.could he still develop the shopping center ,in .the way lit•was initially planned- this
11
residential, development seek their commercial from another location; would, there be new setback And
buffer - requirements for his property;, and will, there be a reduction, Fin the number of residential units,, as
this! could, adversely affect the: success of lthe shopping center, originally planned Mr: Smith said his
understanding was that he was,a.part. of an. R`5 master- planned community and subsequently, _liad rights to
a •certain amount:of comxriercia;l: He asked if he would lose .those,n his, 'if he was` not;a part of the overall
MDP..
Mr: Smith 59aid,there were two underlying agreem'ePtIgI of record one is between
Dogwood Development Group; ,L_LC ;and• the Sanitation, Authority; the other, agreernent,'-is between the
applicant's residential land and „his commercial property.,, whereby lie. has .rights and they have:obligation_s
to provide him with utilities. Mr: S n`ith. aske&if those agreements would;, bey affected ,by'this separation.
Mr.; Smith,;;referenced several letters `between the app_'licariV's ,counsel, Mr., Lawson, and Frederick County
Attorney, Rod Williams:; Mn'Smith was opposed to a severing'of his;commercial property from the 1VIDP
at th s 't me. ; 'He said he has not .had time to study tliis'.and does not know what the impacts would be` on
his property;' he., was concerned about losing-h'is entitlements and zoning.
1VIr: Smith added that a sewer,plant °was built in Phase I; ,he said :a Phase 'If construction, is
needed _to„ serve tfie remaining:.residenti'al and the shopping center. He said this 'was supposed to be
constructed undef,the original MDP.. Mr,,Srriith askedAf the applicant would still,be required: to construct;
the Phase ;ll; portion and::if tfie,sewer and water •will still be: available, to him: He said these utilities were
supposedto be constructed,fo his property line.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2998`
Minutes of.:July '1'7 „20`1`3
14-
Commissioner Thomas inquired whether.Mr: Smith should have been given 3.0 -60 days
notice before it came to the Planning Commission for due diligence and adequate research. Frederick
County Attorney; Rod Williams,, said the notification that was sent to Mr., Smith by Frederick County-was
the same notice that would: be given for. a rezoning —the most aggressive action that can be taken by the
County under Planning Law fora notification.
Commissioner. Thomas, asked if the buffers and setbacks stipulated in the zoning
ordinance fora commercial _development adjacent to residential use would be required, if these two
properties are severed into two; independent'MDPs. Planning, Director,,:Eric R. Lawrence, stated that for
the purpose of severing, the staff will recognize this as a single project, similar to what was done with-
Snowden Bridge and Channing Drive; Mr, Lawrence said the; ,severing is simply because the original
MDP is now owned by two different parties /developers, so they both,have the rights to proceed with their
development schemes and not :have to zgo.back and forth with each. other to sign off M Ps. He stated this
was the driving force behind this severing exercise. Mr. Lawrence said there are no buffers, so staff is
going to recognize the properties as being one. Commissioner 'Thomas asked if this would be
documented, since this project has been ongoing for the past 35 years and may go on for some time into
the.fdture.:
I
Commissioner Thomas inquired,if the documentation would be•on the plats or the MDP. Mr.
Lawrence said it is due diligence and whoever develops the property at that time will need to .look at the
MDP; _he..said the 2001 MDP is ;going to .drive how this project advances. Mr. Lawrence stated this
severing will not affect Mr: Smith's zoning rights and he will continue to have'all of his commercial
rights: Mr. Lawrence stated,the severing simply indicates that the Lansdowne propertycan, advance on its
own without asking for a signature, from the other party.. Likewise, Mr.. Smith's property could advance
on its,own. without having a. signature from the Lansdowne party.
Mr: Lawson returned' to the podium and stated that both he and Mr. Leonard S. "Hobie"
Mitchel of Lansdowne Development Group, -LLC,. have spoken with Mr. Smith as recently .as Monday.
M. 'Lawson assured the'Commission there would be no loss of'entitlements to'Mr. Smith's property. He
said both water and sewer "and road connections are provided in this plan to the commercial. 'Mr. Lawson
said Mt. Mitchel `wants to facilitate and drive the commercial development -because it's an asset and
benefit to the residential community;
Chairman Wilmot, stated this MDP meets the County's ordinances and the Commission's
action is to either recommend or not recommend severance to the Board of Supervisors.
Comrnissioner'Thomas said he did not favor the severing; but if the Commission would
recommend approval of the severing'to the Board;: he would like to. see , additional language stating the,
need "to consider this overall, development as one MDP, not' two separate MDPs. Commissioner. Thomas
said he would have;preferred;to see:proffersfor school children, emergency services,,and transportation.
Commissioner Oates recalled in past incidences where developments have been severed,
he couldn't remember :any case where one of the parties came before the Commission to say he was
opposed. to the severing., Commissioner`Oates said: in.this case;. one party pis opposed and considering that
standpoint, if they.'re joined :in the one :MDP; then both owners have to cooperate as far as access and
utilities. He was concerned because so much has changed with this' MDP and Mr. Smith was unaware of
what' was taking place when,hl e should have been involved. Commissioner Oates commented this comes
before4he Planning .C.omm"ission now to be severed, and Mr. Smith still has no documented comments on
how the severing would affect him regarding interconnectivity, He said if both owners have to agree 'on
th&,M])P with signature-, it protects one -from the other on the°'interconnectivity and utilities.
Frederick County Planning' Commission Page 2999
Minutes of July 17, 2013
t5-
Commissioner Thomas suggested the Commission table this severing requestfor 45. days
in order to let the two parties come to a better agreement.
Commissioner Oates said until the two separate .owners are in favor of the severing, he
would not vote in favor of the severing:
Commissioner- Thomas made a motion to table this severing request for 45 days and he
encouraged the two developers to come to an agreement on future utility connectivity, roads,, and,
compatibility between the two;severed IVIDPs and who is, responsible for what activity. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Dunlap,and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED; the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table action for 45 days on.
the request to. sever the commercial and residential land bays of Master. Development Plan #01 -1.3 for
Shenandoah to allow time for ahe two separate developers to come to an agreement concerning who will
be; responsible for various future activities including utility_ connectivity, roads, and compatibility between
the two severed MDP.s.
Note Commissioner Mbhn' abstained from. voting; Commissioner Crockett was absent from the
meeting.)
OTHER
CANCELLATION OF THE AUGUST 7, 2013.MEETING-
Chairman Wilmot. announced there were - no pending items for the Planning
Commission's August 7, 2013 meeting.
A motion was made. by Commissioner Oates; seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and
unanimously passed to cancel the August 7, 2013 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
No further, business: remained to be discussed. A motion was made by Commissioner
Oates; seconded by Commissioner. Manuel,, and unanimously passed to adjourn the °meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,,
4
ne ilmot,. Chairman
Eric Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick'CountyPlanning Commission Page 3000,
Minutes of July 17; 2013, '