HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 08-21-13 Meeting MinutesWET ING MINUTES
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING GOIVIMISSION
Held in the; Board Room of the: Frederick 'County Administration ,Building At' 107 North Kent Street .in
Winchester, Virginia on August 21 „201,3,.
PRESENT:. June 'M: Wilmot ;, Chairman %Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas', Vice Chairman/
Opequon,District Gary : Oates Stonewall District; J. Stanley, Crockett; Stonewall District; Lawrence. R: ry - ,
Ambrogi, Shawnee; District, H. Paige, Mimpel,- Shawnee District;• Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District
Kevin,Ker ne' Gainesboro District- .Greg,L. Unger, Back Creek District; ;J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek;
District; Christopher M. IVlohn;; Red Ai d. District; Charles F. Dunlap; Red B'ud, District; Ro'd Williams,
County,Attorney; Robert'Hess, Board. of Supervisors Liaison; and.lVlarthA Shickle, Winchesfer:Planning
Comm Ssion Liaison.
ABSENT: Brian Madagaq,'Opeguon District; J. Rhodes Marston; Baek °Creek,Distrlct
STAFF - P.i1tESENT;. Eric R; ;Lawrence, Planning Director; 'Michael T.. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator;, Candice E. ,Perkins, Senior'Planner; Lindsey Felton, .
QJ.S Analyst-, andRenee;S`. Arlotta, Glerk..
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot .cafled, the August 21, 20,1'3 ;meeting of the Frederick, County Planning
Commission to order at 7 p0,0 '.m. ,Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting_ by 'inviting: everyone to
join, in a,momenV'0f $`dence.
F
ADOPTION OF AGE -NDA
A
Chain an Wilmot :announced: an amendment to 'this evening's ;agenda, by fan additional
tab: She said Tab' 8'. will be "Other-” _and Tab "9 will be "Adjourn;" Chairman- Wilmot said there, were
some `informational items she wanted to convey to. the commission .members'.
Upon .motion:made by'Commssioner:0ates,and seconded by Commissioner Crockett; the
Vanniage Commission unanimously adopted 'the-amended agenda for "this, evening's meeting.
Fiederiek,Courity Planning Coin `mission Page 3001
Minutes of'August 2 '1,; 2013
2-
MINUTES
Upon motion made by_.Commissioner Oates and seconded `byCommissionerCrockett, the
minutes of the July 17, 2013' meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS.
Sanitation Authority (FCSA)-- -,8/21/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger stated the FCSA reported there were 49 new services in the
previous quarter; rainfall for July was 539 inches; rainfall for June was'3.62'inches; use,at the Diehl Plant
was approx, 2.2mgd; use at the Anderson .Plant was approx. ,2.4mgd; .84mgd were purchased from the
City of Winchester -, and Daily Average Used was 5.53mgd,, up from the previous 5.35mgd. The reason .
for the increase was discovered to' be `leaks °within the system and the FCSA is working. to correct those.
Elevation, at, the Diehl Plant increased about one foot from the ,previous: month; the, Anderson Plant was
down slightly. Commissioner Unger said-the FCSA reported about a production well being excavated to
feed some of the quarries; it di'd.:not;produce as they hoped it would.
Winchester Planning Commission — 8/20/13 Mtg.
Winchester `Planning Commission Liaison, Martha Shickle; reported the 'Winchester,
Planning Commission had three :conditional use permit requests at their meeting yesterday,,'two of which
dealt with communications towers. The first request was simply a relocation of 4G' equipment upgrades
at,the same site.and,the Comm ission;recommended approval The second was more difficult in that it had
to do with the City's own telecommunication systems with emergency response and after a lengthy
discussion; the Commission recommended approval by, a; majority vote. Ms. Shickle said the site was a
preferred site by the consultant, but there were community issues =the Council will need to reconcile. Also
discussed was a text amendment initiated last month regarding restaurants and entertainment
establishments, essentially by' rhanging.;the.conditional use process; in the .downtown and other, similar
districts, to make the process more streamlined for those types of businesses to open and operate within
the community., Ms. Sh ckle 'said -the last two items had to & with .rezoning, She said the first one dealt
with corridor enhancement along ,Berryville, Avenue, which was recommended for approval. The second
was "a rezoning request from a private property developer to renovate and redevelop 'the, Coke bottling
plant. on Valley Avenue and this was forwarded to Council with, a recommendation of approval
Frederick CountyPlanning Commission, Page 3002
Minutes of August °21,:2013
3`_
Development Consults Committee
Commissioner Dunlap: reported some technical issues were worked out. since the last.
meeting. He said the Committee's first assignment: came out yesterday and pertains to a review of 'the
Urban, Centers and Traditional Neighborhood Designs. He said comments are requested from the.
members of the Development Consults Committee on these two topics, 'how they work, and if there are
any constrictions, etc. Commissioner Dunlap said this assignment is due "within a .couple weeks and
hopefully; he will have more to report at the next Planning Commission. meeting.
Comprehensive Plans & Pra2rams Committee
Mr. Ruddy reported the, .CPPC will meet only once -in August on Monday, the 260', and
will not have their regularly`scheduled meeting on September 9` "."
Citizen_ Comments
Chairman. Wilmot called for citizen comments on. any subject not currently on the
Planning. Commis"sion's agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen
comments portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #03 -13" of Madison Village, submitted by Painter- Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 51.26 acres
from RA (Rural. Areas) District to 46.26 acres ofRP'(Residential Performance) District and' 5 acres
of B2 (Bus "mess; General) District with.. proffers. The property is, located on the west side of Route
522, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road. The
property, is;further identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled" for 90 days
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting- on this
particulaar, item, due to apossible conflict.of interest.,
Deputy Planning 'Director, Mr. Michael Ruddy, oriented the Commission as to the
location of the :subject 'property and .surrounding land uses, as well as the County's transportation
network. Mr. Ruddy reported the Madison Village rezoning application is generally consistent with
future land 'use designations of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban
Areas Plan, which provide; guidance, on the future development of the. "property; the property is also
located within the UDA (Urban.Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). Be
said the 2030 Comprehensive Plan :identifies the general area surrounding this property with a high
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3003
Minutes of August21., 2013
4-
density,jesidential land use designation, and, in general, the, proposed residential designation for this
property is consistent with 'this.. residential land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan., He noted that
potential impacts of the development are addressed through the applicant's proffer statement.
Mr. Ruddymated the applicant has provided a GDP (Generalized Development;Plan) for
the 'purpose of identifying the general configuration of the street providing access to and through the
project, the residential and commercial land use areas, andthe improvements at the Route ,522 entrance.
The.GDP also shows the location of potential roundabouts internal to the site and bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations. Regarding land . use, h_ e said the applicants have proffered to ,limit the total number of
res "dentia l units to 64'0. Mr. Ruddy said it is important to recognize that no minimum amount of
residential units or density, has been. committed to ensure the more intensive development of this site,.
Regarding access management, the applicant .has proffered the signalization of the intersection of the site
driveway and Route 522. In addition, the applicant has proffered five initial transportation improvements
and ,rigfit -of ='-way dedication to :support the, site's access, along with bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Regarding transportation,_ the applicant has, proffered to, construct, the internal ,road system as shown on
the ,GDP which includes inter- parcel access and connections; to, adjacent. properties. Mr. Ruddy stated it
Was important to recognize the extension of1hese roads to the adjacent properties i's proffered at the time
of the MDR (Master Development ;Plan), for the project,. Specific commitments as to the timing of 'the
public street connections have not.been,proffered;..
Mr. Ruddy pointed out that while the public hearing sign was placed on this property
several weeks ago; a sign has not been available and visible for the past several days. He. said as the
public hearing proceeds, the; Commission .may need to revisit this with an appropriately recognized and
I
osted public hearing.
Mr. John, Lewis; P:E., with. Painter- Lewis, P.L.C, was representing this project. Mr.,
Lewis said the owner envisions this project as a high- density residential, development with a commercial
component. He said the Comprehensive Plan identifies this land as having a.residential density of 12 -16
units per acre. Mr,. Lewis, said the: impacts: identified in the application; 'irieluding utilities, transportation,
schools, and environment, are based on- the construction of 640 units on 46 acres. This number is
approaching the density of 74 units per acre. Regarding the staff comment that the application does
not place a minimum on the number of proposed units, Mr. Lewis said'the construction. of single- family
traditional residential lots is not contemplated on this land and Jow,density development is :not the
purpose or the intention of this application. Mr. Lewis said .the MDP he intends to submit subsequent to
the approval of the rezoning °request will reflect a mix of apartments and townhouses. He said while they
have ,addressed impacts for : singlee- family in the proffer statement, they pare not at this point envisioning .
single- family homes here. Mr. Lewis believed, this amount of infrastructure will require a fairly heavy
density to support the road network they are proposing.and proffering.,
Regarding thee, transportation impacts; he .said, his meetings with., staff have resulted in the
road''improvements shown on the GDP and the concept rendering-. He said "the staff is emphasizing the
importance of providing public "road .connections to the north, west, and south, in support of -long -range
transportation' planning. He said the, applicant has proffered to construct these roads. Initial road
construction will include Route 522 turn lanes,.Route 522 entrance, the first intersection, and a.connection
to the north. He: noted this' includes all -the area adjacent to the commercial. Mr. Lewis said the applicant
is: not planning to develop the; commercial. He said there is considerable+ commercial space .available
within the: county and. he, believes the market is. :for the high- density residential. However, they will
reserve that space believing that, if there: are 640 residential units, someone will want to put commercial in
this area. Timing for the extension of'roads to the western and southern boundaries will be tied to
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3004
Minutes of August,21, 2013
5-
subsequent phases of construction. and these phases will, be shown on the MDP. Mr. Lewis believed the
application,has adequately addressed all of the development impacts'.
Commissioner Unger had questions for'the applicant-concerning trips per day at build out
and the ; impacts of•those trips on Route 52'2. Mr. Lewis commented that all of the traffic "impacts have
been identified in the TIA and "they have met- with VDOT representatives: Mr., Lewis added they have
proffered a traffic signal when 'it1s warranted at the Route 522 intersection.
Commissioner :Kenney had .questions about whether the applicant, had consulted
surrounding property owners; what.the anticipated 'impacts would, be on local schools; and whether, the
project would be constructed in'- phases. Mr. Lewis specul'ated`the project`would have a 1.5 -20 year build
out.
Commissioner Thomas observed from the TIA the north- bound, left -turn lane Level of
Service (LOS) would drop to Level D at build out, and heJnquired.what`methods the -applicant. would use
to mitigate that situation. Mr. Lewis said•the'TIA must take into account all of the future development in
the immediate area, such as the ;.Russell 150 and parcels to the west. Mr. Lewis said if a single entrance
and one east/west road is considered, then .it will be a LOS D. However, they are assuming;, and in all
probability, there will be other east -west connectors that will mitigate. And raise the LOS to C or better.
Commissioner Kenney asked what recreational, aspect _was anticipated with the FCPR
Frederick County Dept. of Parks 8c Recreation). Mr. Lewis replied the amount of land the FCPR was
seeking at their initial meeting is. probably not going to work., Mr. Lewis said this property is only 50
acres and considering the amount of land needed, for right -of -way and environmental features, it limits °the
amount of developable land "the applicant can afford to give away. He said the applicant was anticipating
a recreational center /swimming pool; but the final decision, about1he facility will be illustrated on the
MDP.
The issue regarding impacts to schools was raised again, by Comini'ssioner Thomas. Mr.
Lewis, said they have revised their proffer statement in this. regard and resubmitted to the FCPS (Frederick
County Public School`s). Mr. Lewis said the applicant is doing exactly what the .DIM (Development
Impact Model)requires`them to do as far as the voluntary cash proffer:.
Commissioner Mohn, Wanted to follow up on the 'staffs: comments regarding density and
the land use designation' issue. He ,said in looking at the GDP ,arid the proffers, he said it was fairly
generic?with the - residential use and it. doesn't provide the Commission with, Any;assuranee this would be a
mik of single- family attachedand. multi- family. -He said based on the way this proposal is put together, at
the: MDP stage the applicant could come in, and legitimately put in a mix of single- family detached and
attached, or any combination of units this district would allow. Commissioner Mohn asked Mr. Lewis `if
this' was considered,.'but was s omething• the applicant chose not to do. Commissioner Mohn was
concerned about the rational for not designating on the: GDP or by', proffer that this ,.would'be a mix of
single- family attached and .multi=family so there is consistency when the MDP' is submitted and there
would be no question about the housing type.
Discussion, between the staff,,,the Commission, and the applicant ensued on this issue.
Mr. Ruddy stated once this property is zoned to RP; without any restricted or more defined proffers, it
could develop, as single - family,; °traditional, all; the way through apartment housing types. He said this is
the benefit of ,designation in the. rezoning proffer statement because it 'provides an additional level of
regulation, an additional..pat ,of'the zoning ordinance, which further refines those 'housing types. Mr.
Frederick County Planning Commission'' ' _ Page,3005
Minutes of August 21,, 2013 .
6-
Ruddy `said in this - specific case, if the- goal is to attain 'higher density residential, then the proffer
statement is definitely the place to .ref ne .that'with language 'to ,state, "townhouses," "apartments," or "no
single- family detached.."
Commissioner Mohn commented the time" to ensure this' project will .be in, conformance
L.
with the Comprehensive Plan is, now through the rezoning; once `it goes to the MDP, then it is an
administrative action, tomake'sure the; plan is in conformance-with the ordinance.
Chainnan Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen comments and called, for
anyone who wished to speak to comeforward.
Mr. Michael' Shepherd, a resident of the Shawnee Magisterial District; said he and his
wife purchased two adjoining parcels, PINs #64 -A -14 and . #64 -A -15, in 2003, and the parcels were
rezoned to B2 (Business General) by the Board of Supervisors on April .1.4, 2004. He noted both parcels
have roughly 1 00 feet of frontage along Route 522 and both are "approximately 250 feet deep. Mr:
Shepherd said ,he reached. an inter - parcel developmental agreement for buffers with the Russell 150
project in 2006, involving setbacks,, so that he could maintain the limited, space of his two parcels. Mr.
Shepherd said he learned from' a meeting.with Mr. Lewis, and through oter sources, that Madison, LLC
will. need to vacate his properties' entrances and exits and grade' the ,front of his property to meet sight
distance requirements for VD.OT. Mr. Shepherd said he contacted 'Mr. Lewis on .July 2, 201.3,, for the
purpose of arranging an .agreement on four items involving theirproperties. He said the first item was a
land swap involving_ a strip of Madison; LLC. land behind his two parcels: Mn, Shepherd. asked to be
given that strip of land on the Madison, LLC' property" ,in exchange for his ..frontage needed for their
deceleration lane into their Route 522 entrances. Mr, Shepherd asked the applicant to extend the
deceleration `lane approximately 100 -120 feet so he ;could have access into his property. Mr.:Shepherd .
said one of the applicant's proffers offers to give him an exit on, his'northernmost parcel; however; Mr.
Shepherd, said his two parcels "are, still legally 'separated. and he, was concerned his southernmost parcel
would be .left with no, exit. In addition; Mr: Shepherd said there is a spite strip issue, to the. south, where
his connector road comes in from Route 522; he said the: applicant has a small portion of land between
their road and his southernmost boundary which is not significant .enough to act as a buffer and Mr.
Shepherd' had asked the applicant if he would increase that distance ;slightly. Mr. Shepherd said he
generally supports the applicant. sl project-, however, he hoped an agreement can be :reached between the
applicant and Frederick County to deal with these, ,issues.; Mr. Shepherd, said at this time, .no agreement
has been reached between him and the applicant. Mr. Shepherd explained'he has no other recourse later
on other than legal action to ,access' or develop his properties, "should something not get worked out. Mr.
Shepherd said he is simply asking,; and to make a point of record, that he would. like to negotiate these
issues with Madison, LLC over the 'next` few weeks and, hopefully, reach an agreement so 'that he can
come back",and support the project,whole- heartedly:_ Mr-, Shepherd added that he has already filed.site
plans for his property and his:, site, plans are, in full contradiction to what the applicant's project is showing.
No one else, wished to ,speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearring..
Mr. Ben Butler; the attorney for Madison Village, said :hee met. yesterday with, Mr., Mark
Stivers, the attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Shepherd. Mr. Butler said unfortunately, Mr. Madison is
out of town; so, nothing has :yet. been resolved. He commented 'that these two landowners are going to
have to. work, together because there are certain things Madison Village will need, for example, the,
grading easement across the front of Mr. Shepherd's property for sight distance, so they want to work
with Mr. Shepherd. 'Mr. Butler believed this evening was pre- matureto answer `1VIr. Shepherd's concerns
Frederick.County Planning Commission Page 3006
Minutes of August 21, 2013
7,
becauselVlr..Lewi's has not yetdefined'the distance wherethe entrance needs to go. He;said- thefapplicant
will certainly attempt -to =accommodiie Mr Shepherd with, access, to °roads „arid sewer. The :question is
Whether the agreement between_ the'two landowners needslo:precede the: rezoning,
Chairman Wilmotiasked ” the ;staff how Mr;, Shepherd would' be able to access °his,property.
Ruddy, referred A& the applicarif s:'GDR pointing out the arrows, depicting possible access of;the two
properties to the public road connect`on.,
Commissioner Thomas .commented that since the °appl'icant's development of this project
would ,depend on reaching, an, agreement with Mr. Shepherd,concemin- the grading easement on the front
of his two. properties; it would appear,.t_ho Commission should have'tk,4greement as part of therezoning
package 'beforeapproval. He, said the rezoning, cannot occur if the agreement is not reached.
Commissioner Mblui -asked if staff is comfortable; based. on the `proffer language on what
is shown on the GDP, that there is a;suffcient commitment by the applicant to ensure;the; access occurs
and . can be `implemented with,developmeni , 1VIr: Ruddy'believed the access would be accommodated. He
saidthe,applicant,'improyed tk proffer statement to insure those, road connections would'be. done with11
the first. phase, of development prior to -occupancy; ,to ensure the access would not. only be there for the
applicant's;project but -also to.ihe;two commercial;properties:.
Mi:- Ruddy raised,thb issue again concerning; the appropriate: posting of'the property,,; he
said the public hearing sign 'has; not 'b.een posted on "the property' 'for,a few days. Mr. 'Ruddy believed it
would be appropriate toipostpone a decision until theprope11 could be properly posted.,
Because the, property was -not posted over the last several 'days; Connni'ssioner Thomas
made a motion to table; the rezoning, for 90 days to allow the property to bq . properly posted with a public
hearing sign. Thi's'motion was seconded by Commiss_ioner:lVlohn and if °was unan`imousty passed..
BE' IT.RESOLVED, the` Frederick' County Pfiannmg;Commission does,he_reby unanimously recommend
a 90A1ay,t4bling of Rezoning #03:1,3 of Madison Vil lage, submitted bv_P-,ainter= Lewis,'.P.L.C., in order to
allow the;propeity to.be ,properly, posted with a public, hearing sign.,
Note: Commiss oner'Uhtes abstained from discussion and voting:).
INFORMATION % DISCUSSION IT.EAU:
e, Clapter:165,Z_onmg, to increase
the` maximum heights ip the EM (Extractive Manufacturing Mh Light, Industrial and .M2
Discussion of an o'rdmance to amend the Frederick County Cod
Industrial General) Zomng,Districts.
Senior Planner,,:Candice E:. Perkins, reportedOAhe staff has received a request. to >revise the
zoning ordinance 'ao ittei6ase the nmaximum_ Height- in the ;EM (Extractive Manufacturmg), MI (Light
Industrial); ;and M2 ( Induustrial General) Zoning• Districts.: The applicant, has requested an ;increase in, the
maximum: height.Rfor .occupied structures. in .the., EM District from the existing 45 feet to 10.0 `feet and an
increase in the height for unoccupied structures from 4'S 'feet to 200 feet. The request: also proposes an
increase to the maximum height in the.Ml ;and.M2 Districts "from 601eetto IN feet. Ms. Perkins said the
Frederick County PlapninifCommission' Page , a 007
Minutes of;August 21,; 2013
8-.
purp6see f6r, the requested EM, bistrictliei- ht armeuse Lime Company to construct agincrease
k,,s JO r'ito: r1heoducii0n,of.liffie.
Ms. Perkins .statedthe-§taff.has preparej:a.revision.to:,the:=EM, bistrict:which,provides -for
an increase` in, the EM district ight,:T all structures from. feet to 60 feet and an. allowance f& pm, - -1 ,
ee
unmanned structures, to be constructed
p to.,200 feet in height with approval of a conditional use permit
he,, said staff limited the inof&sod right height to 66 'feet :,because, taller structures, may not be
appropriate m al I EM-Zoned areas of the County, ' t due to the' ?p historic and' resideniial areas; yy,
and ,tAlhef stftidtufes ighotild-be considered on, a. case-b y case basi.sF Shev said the pertnitted height in the
N-4 aii&M Districts: remains: ;at '60 feet, orincluded ' f -150 -feet has been inded with a
conditional use Additional setbacks are included for- dll,di'stticts when the height exceeds 60 -feet.
Ms-. Perkins noted this, fteffi.Vas. discuss-ed by, fie D -'04ffheit July.,25, 2013 meeting. 1 -
11,
1
1 Ok.
S,hIe,said,fhe;DRRC d.i-scuss.e d'ible.various,heightl'npreas-e'-s- and 'dItiffi"at6ly, recomrnended thdAmendmenis
ffibv6 f6rWard,lo theTlanningt6mmission -for discussion':.
Commissioner Thomas . said lit had no problems W increasing the structure' to
200 feet; however; he did ndt-'favor' filiz'ing,a conditiona f,.us6 OerinIt`I(CUP')to dIlOwcit. Commissioner-
Thomas bel* yed this was the,' - w-ronguse fora CUP because of the, connotation associated w ith tfien
b6 ause thev,:are required to, be reviewed and f6ilew on ani, annual or bi 'annual 'ba:sis., He
ai , d..,the mrcebtion it, creates is they be, revoked ,at some future in, time,, if :it is viewed
TITOffia-s-, said this, coiild!makb,it,dlm6st impossible for a deV.Jefipperto- acquirenegatively:. , ommissioner ire
figancin or-to invesfmoney pfivatety:
Ms. Perkins; explained thaeWIf6ii staff has, prbsiehtdd'.dffiehdmdnts for height ::increases. in
the past; they've 'been '.met with mixed' viLews, She said was reason `why st a ff 'has suggested the
ke sure wherever theabilityofthe, BoIT4 of Stipervisors7t6 have oversi' h ;and 'to magt 'on these uses an-
proposed, - i t"is an :appropriate revocation is sue, she said theadditionalheightis: prppria e location. RegArciffig- the. Cev. p I -
industrial/60niffercidl. CUPs at.e Oomewhat different, from a 'home occupation CUP in that,, the
industrial/6,ommerciaL.CUP would-have',Iconditions directly related to the - height :increase; such*, as
additional landscaping; screening, or setbacks; ;those .cohditidis- would beJnp ' I&iefi . ted'. on a.site plan that
would need` app by Frederick County. Ms,, Perkins saidAf'Yaviolation were to occur with -the CUP,
Frederick -Gounty-would, solely be, seeking compliance, not revocation. Ms,. Perkins added that many
f6t height --purposes., local iti0s:ihV4rgin`ia, utilize C Ps Ancrease,
Commissioner MAP shared: ,the 'concern about -&*CU.P',, believed, there -was! a.Trole, for
some. Additional, oversight. He said those dte-ds with eXist'i"ng-,, zoning -- and °possib-le impacts, in pafti&ilar
would need to be;, considered -further. 'He 'commented `the CUP -may not. be the 'correct : mechanism, but if
the Commission is: wrfgidefirig,diff&Mt alternatives of allowing! flexibility, in design oti iltefisi.ty, Within
the, industfial/Coffinfet.641 districts,, there may mechanism, such, as ahother,tier of approval. y be a "better
i nerwhichdoosrf,7,t'have,afiy":,dOn'iiotati6n' bf,,suggestion it could be revoked. Commissioner Mo. n. suggested'
t116-b-ossibility of a -speci4l_ exception; along those lines.., which i's a, level above, a 'CUP`ou a
special use ,pqrmit,that would: provide some greater degree of assurance to. & business or the economic
de'0610pment -community who are m'aki.hg*.:thi-s- "investment; that „ if their site plan is aporcived,coifsi4ent
with the special exception; :they ;arb!lfftished. However; .in the process of getting that. 5p ' e0idl exception
approved,there1s, a full rop portudity for°the,Board of Supervisors 'to con'sia'er, e, any unique impacts and to
apply conditions that jwould address impacts: ,Commissioner MoArr' said the Commission may, emovmg
in lh(z lditecijo&f-i from 'a coinplexity pPpr e -where, it wants to protecf, rights, and investment; andsgptiv
n :butpy9yidethosedssuraces, sff1i aflow.-the community an opportunity to take, a look and provide:input.
Aug0501, 2Ofl
the r Jn agreement; ent thereCoffirrfis§iciifer OateFs,stdted' -all . the, members "of DRRC. were eem
wouldn't: lie !,a y conditions! for, revokin - permit: - H-shidthe,06rid' T &,,,A _e; -itiorS the DRRCw6uld be seeking.,
would .solely be• with the proposed height and appegran6et a d,fbp applicant. wo Id si pl :4o proffdring..
ornmi'ssibner Oates said, the DRRC all & s
I
discussed allowing individual - , properties tp apply for -the CUP areas with d master-plAnned business.
pliaqifigthe entire, park ufiWri,one UP..
Commissfoner Unger commented these -'same 'issues were extensively discussed at the.
DRAC"'ineetifig. He believed'the,,jl'anguagp.proposed,was tkbestzsuibed f6r,this situation,,,
Ms. Perkirts.assifred'Ahe Commission 1hat, b6fore4he Roard., of Supervisors,Aiscossion,
the staff would investigaIe4be afternative options of'allowing1loqrd'review and'9ppjqyql without the.
CUP connotation. Ms. ,Perkins, sdidalid!iiit,&fit-.bf' what the,iCbibm'i-§s"i6fii-s,. seeking Here is: c-iedr.
Discusgion of an ordinance to amend -theTrederkk County, Code, Chaptev-165, Zoning, to update
fefitlfe.tbk 67rasio of DLiV616piffefit Rights) table Wlhclijde a
u"-
Transfer provision for contiguous lots and
addition of a TDR. densitycopveesion:rate for rural to utbaii frialisfers.
Senior Planher;., dridi-cbl. Nr'kiiis, reported the staff has drafted three proposed changes
f& the Transfer," of Development R,"ights, (TDR) Ordinance 'thai'w,as.,of-i-gitfallv adopted in 2010:. In' addition
to° the ordinance being updated to be consistent- with the RP changps, she said ,an additional` reason fovthe
chanog is -to piisijfe the; use_ of TDR's' f&ffiam a beneficial option "f6f, future development in. lieu of
rezoning., M1-s- . . P- et rk i- n- s - !reviA' ed , oaci';.o. f t- hen propose- Uchange§ separately., Revision #J1; Transfer of-
D'evelopment.. Rights (T]Dkj Density Table: She stated this rev"i'sibri. will bring the TDR- density
maximums, i-ft _ to "
cohforbani& -
with. ,`the updated RP's (ResideniiAl Performance) density maximums
adop tocai n: Jan u a' U 20 3. ShpW §aid if:iibltdes.iffctea8itg the;RPallQwdble, density when using;TDRs for A
development; and increasing the RA. (RuTal, Areas) permitted maximum- A nsity using TDR';s to be
consistent with the maximum RP dciisity using TDRS. kevis'l'on! #2, Contiguous Sending Properties,. She
stated thist revision to the TDR,includes at, ininotaddifi6ry whitk -allows the use, of contiguous
parcds, for TDR transfers. For examp1q,,,. one prppqr,,ty Mayy have -,State road. but another
contiguous 'property under ;the same ;ownership may not. Revision '43, Density Right Conversion Rate.
She: this revision t the ordinance'includes ,a:density ri" g ht' conversion that would apply to
density. 'rights, being applied. to receiving, properties. The, conversion. -would 'be 'based on the type of
hb uO ng unit hefpg, developed on J ke. receiving property,. defact&d, single_fanily
attached, or, multifamily. Ms,.. Perkins explained that when, `utjiizifia TORs to develop; .receiving
l--fo 10' w ifgzoiv detachedwoulda--
yy
Single7 f hily det ed 4wel-ngsi I _T -6k.right — i ' p
sngl' family detached dwelling, up f, Single4dmiatacheddwellih sJTDRfight:=A.5,siqgle family
amchbd, d Wellngu:nk5, and Multifamily, dwellings: I TDR rig = -7Mmultifamily
Jw6llingI '
u its;
Ms..Perki`ns reportedthat,RevisioD #1. was discussed by tbeDRRC,on,,AP ri1.25,2013 and
it, was discussed by the Planning 'Q'.offiffii
I
ss i , on,lon May 15,, 20,13, She Jioted that after the Cbmmi§sion
di8cussioq, - it w --tits, '59,01 tk revisions could he: 45 p. -on, hold fq'aw,ait'the other two ordinance,amendine
brought -for.wIard,-as.,on,e packagel. <Slie said ,the DRRC discussed Revisions 42 and 0 at, their. meeting ,on.
July 201 Ms Perkins said. the :staff is seeking comments from the Commission, fo.f6fwafd to .the
B ard Supervisors. u. pprvisorso -.-f.
F,'redefi&T0Qni,Y Vlan`h-n'-g, ommissian, PAI
U-Mkes,Of August _'2A, 260
0
Comm iss ion er,,Oaf6 re orfed to Rovisibri.4 tcels, and ifid0ifod: if this W fs2 Coh6gifQIY Pdr
written to :mean the lot With State road. frontage `will have to give up-* rights before the ones behind it.
could: Ms, Perkih§.,sdid 'the, properties would have,to; her submitted as one single 'package. She said if all
dife, ifi, -first and the remainder of "thethe. parcels were 'contiguous and, the developer Wanted to,bring:
contiguous parcels lat e r, it would be. possible. She said ,the &vdlqpqr could'. a ' Iso retain rights for the
pafdel'IhAt meets =requirements and retain rights for the .others.,
No other,questipns'or issues were'rafsed regardingthe TDR Ordiriance,revisions.,
OTHER
Information Regarding2 ifie;Mbj fbi- Shenandoah
Chairman 'W . ilmot. said' Commissioners -may, have been, -expecting to see the, MJDP for
ShonandbAh 'back, on the ;dkefida Afr& it was tabled by the C om-nI'IsS'Ibn_ to allow time ;for the two
developers-,to. communicate regardi'ngjhe', severing of the M_I)R. - Chairman .Wilmot , stated,. the Commission
had.apparonfly, exceeded 'its "respo-nslbifities And the Board :of Supervisors took care "of the,severing of the
c6rhmercial , p , rbp&rty',,at theit, meeting tthis:p4stwoek.
Informati6n,.ReZardiii2-.tke:.Sttid*, on Business Friendly Gro
Planning Director, Eric 'R. Lawfenm stated that, a& a- result of the Business Friendly
Stqdy;. the group -has three pro' ect& to. pursue. He said - two, - of the,, projects will go to the
I
Development
ke.v.iewdndRdgu:'Iati'oiis Cbm"m'ittep.,.(0,RRC); Thoselw,-O -OtO_ctsinvo Iv
I
e!foVieANiiqg theMDP-process, as
d , make sure those fii tioning, properly, are, well as reviewing, hfo, landscape orman co. to brO , Pos$o5 :_Nare'; functioning
necessary, P-d-, meet business - friendly standards. Mr.-IaWrence sai d. the third project assigned is to
evaluate `the Developmen t Impact M . a6l to, determine 'how credits' maybe ftadezvailable. He said this
study Will go, through the Developmeriv Impact Model Oversight 'Committee (DIMOC) , Mr. Lawrence
said the,?Iafining Commission, . Will beIept"inf6rmedon'these various disbussib'ns-.
C li Witaot-, announced the housing: rpporf. forilfe fikst.:six months of 20,11. Sheaidh
said' the totaThou sing starts, for, Frederick County for 2013, so far are 247 new housing units; the total for
OTZ was * l7`1.
Fredefick C6uhty Planning'Comrni"ssioiri_ Page 30.10
MiMit.es, of August 21, 201 3
P - IahWi' rL fnia - C-ifiI zens Pianni rw,Education ssoci
Chairman Wilmot stated that, Pl'"Vitg'ihia ' ' -6m) ''is fhe=.prdfessionafW.ww..planVirgiinia-.c
organization w P'lann-ing, personnel with ,'.0ppprt ifibs for: additional knowlodge. She saidtorgai . ' which provides- I
One.,bf the, programs js, a, PIA i0fie' Certificationp , g m1mg. COMMIS9 ts?, C , ifi ation Program, and she 'encouraged members
whoare,not yet certified to look, into this program, Qhaifman. Wilniot said there, is also a, C ornnionwe-alth,
Plahhihgjand Zoning, Conference; on October. 13-457, which is open to all the Plaiji1mg,Comm ission
members and will be, held in R -k -V- Oaho - . e,. , irgima.
CanMlatibn,of the.P laniiiniz,C-omm'71'Ss;lon7s September.. 4-20-3 Meetih
Chairman Wilmot announced there were- no' ppr 4ing. -items, for the Cqm.mJssioq'.s
Septemb& 4, 261*3 meeting.
Upon :motion made. by Commissioner, Oates, and.sec-onded'by Commissioner Thomas, the
Plannihg. Commission- cancef6dl.thdif SOpteml5er. 4, 2613 meeting; by' a; unanimous vote.
ADJOURNMENT
No further PSitess reffiained jo he discussedsed anda mofibri, Was,ftlade'by Commissioner,
Oates to adjourn. the meeting: This motion Was seconded Commissioner -Manuel and unanimouslyis -Y
passed Ftb!,,adjburh the ffie6tih ' at 8"1.0 Pm.
Respectfully , submitted,
Mnee'.M. njot hainndnC -
Erie Lawrence; ,Se qrefdr, y
Preddri&Xounfv Pffirining
Minutes df- August ,'21. 20l'
PagC301-1