Loading...
PC 11-06-13 Meeting MinutesMEETING, OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick. County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on November' 6, 2013, PRESENT: June, M. 'Wilmot;, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L.. Thomas; Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall. District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District;; Lawrence R. Ambrogi; Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn; Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of'Supervisors Liaison; and Jennifer Beatley, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison. ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin Kenney; Gainesboro District and Charles F. Dunlap, Red. Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R: Lawrence, P larining Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO, ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the November 6;, 2013 :meeting; of the Frederick County Planning .Commission to order at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by ..inviting everyone to join in a moment of silence. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett ;, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting.. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3026 Minutes of.November 6, 2013 2- COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Committee.(DRRQ — 10/24/13 Mtg. pCommissionerUngerreported the DRRC ,discussed, potential revisions, to the Master Development. Plan requirements contained within the zoning ordinance pursuant to the Business Friendly Committee recommendations. Commissioner Unger said a lengthy discussion ensued and the DRRC believed, it was important for adjoining property owners to. be aware of the potential development proposed to take place next to, them. He said the DRRC did not want to eliminate the opportunity for citizens to comment on the proposed development. Transportation Committee — 40/28%13 Mtg. Commissioner ..Oates reported about three items on the Transportation Committee's agenda. First was a revenue "sharing application from Graystone for the construction of'Snowden Bridge Boulevard, a road which two, rezoning, proposals have proffered to build. The second item, was the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) with the list of roads normally seen each year. Commissioner Oates said -it was decided to break.theast down into funded and unfunded projects and then reset the priorities. The third item discussed' was the .Route 3:7 project. He said the committee will 'be looking at the engineering plans for-the completio.n';of`Route 37 all the way around Winchester at their next meeting on November.25. Winehester= Planning Commission— .10/15/13 Mtg. Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, Ms. Jennifer Beatley, reported the Winchester Planning Commission approved a, conditional use permit (CUP) on °East Cork Street for conversion of'a ground floor, -non- residential use to residential use; approved a- rezoning of 1.7 acres of land on Cedar Creek Grade for the Cedar Creek Place project from R021 District with CE. Overlay to B2 District with PUD -NCE District Overlay; approved an ordinance to amend the Winchester Zoning Ordinance to change the rriaximuin, time limit in which the Commission. must report a recommendation to City Council from 9'0: to 1.00 days; and °there was one administrative approval for tl'e Glaize; Phase, 2 project. on. 320 North Cameron Weet. Ms. Beatley reported the next Winchester 'Plar ring Commssion meeting is scheduled for'Noveinber I9, 2013 at 3;00 p:m. Citizen Comments. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Comnii "ssion's agenda. 'No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed °the'citizen comments portion of the meeting: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3027 Minutes of November 6, 2013 3- PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance. to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, 'Zoning, Article M, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) PrograM, Part 302, Sending. and Receiving Properties, 'Section 165- 302.01 .Sending Properties; Section ;165- 302:03, Calculation of Development Rights. Thisl revision will update the TDR density ;rights table,, it will include a. provision for contiguous lots; and it will include the addition of a TDR density conversion rate for receiving properties. Action — Recommended Approval,. Sen for Planner, 'Candice E: 'Perki'ns, reported this ordinance: amendment contains three separate items, with the first being the Density Table revisions, the, second is the Contiguous Sending Properties Provision, and the third is; the Density Right Conversion Rate. Ms. Perkins stated these are the, same amendments considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 16, 2013; but were consequently tabled due to questions on proper advertisement. She said no other changes have been made to these amendments since 'they were last considered by the Commission. Chairman. Wilmot 'next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone who wished to speak. Mr. Bruce Carpenter came forward to introduce himself and noted that both he and his wife, Kim, are residents, farmers; and rural land owners in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Carpenter said he' was also a director, with the Frederick County Farm, Bureau. Mr. Carpenter wished to express, the support of 'the Frederick County Farm Bureau for the proposed TDR ordinance amendments. He stated the Frederick County Farm Bureau:is a. membership ,organization which promotes; educates, and lobbies on behalf of agricultural issues in Frederick County and is one link in the chain that comprises the Virginia Farm Bureau.. Mr. Carpenter stated the 2441 producer members. represented by the Farm Bureau are fortunate to control :a large portion of the land which may be affected' as sending members of the TDR Program and its changes. He said the Frederick, County Farm Bureau completely endorses the proposed amendment before the Commission and has twice passed a unanimous vote on a resolution supporting transfer of development rights. Mr. Carpenter said the Farm Bureau supports the proposed changes which they believe will add value for rural land .owners; looking to take advantage of this program. They also believe it will be a: valuable tool for the rural. land owner who wishes to realize income -from his property without being:'forced to sell to the highest bidder as an only alternative. In addition, the proposed changes to the program will not onlyadd value and marketability to the TDRs, but will increase the, potential success of this valuable: wealth management, retirement,, and 'estate planning opportunity. He stated that, many rural land owners have looked at the value of their land as their retirement income or the inheritance for• their heirs. Without alternate avenues, such as this program, the only :way to 'capitalize on thin asset was t& sell. He said' with the proposed. changes before the Com nissi_on; the TDR.has greater- value not only for the seller, but to the potential, buyers looking. to maximize density and hopefully, profits within the urban development areas. Mr,. Carpenter stated Frederick County and its residents can only benefit from the protection of rural land and the way of life that comes: with. it. He asked. the Commission to recommend approval of the amendment's, with the full support- of the Frederick' County Farm,Bureau. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3028 Minutes of November 6,2013 4- No one else wished to speak -and Chairman Wilmot closed`the citizen comment portion of the. public ;hearing. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval ofthe ordinance 'to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article III Transfer. of Development Rights (TDR) Program, Part 302, Sending and Receiving Properties, Section 1.65- 302.0'1. Sending Properties, Section 1°65- 302.03, Calculation ofADeveloprnent Rights. This revision will update the TDR density rights table, it will include a provision for contiguous lots; and. it will include the addition of a TDR density conversion rate for receiving properties. Note: Commissioners Dunlap; Kenney,; and Madagan were absent:from,the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick` County Code, Chapter 165; 'Zoning, Article VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 6011; Dimensional and, .Intensity Requirements,, Section 165- 601.02, Dimensional and Intensity. Requirements, Part 608, `EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, Section 165- 608.06 Height Limitations. Article,• `II' :Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and .Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Section 1657204.28, Wig ht° `Waivers in the 'EM ( Exxtractive. Manufacturing), Ml (Light - Industrial),. and .M2 (Industrial General) District. These are revision&'to, increase the maximum height in the EM,. Al, and 1VM2. Zoning Districts with, a Board of Supervisors' waiver and the addition of supplementary use regulations. Action Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice, E, reported the proposed amendments will increase the height allowance in the EM, IMI, and M2 'Zoning Districts through, the. approval of a Board of Supervisors' waiver. Ms. Perkins said the waiver opportunity before the Commission would allow the Board of Supervisors to determine'tle appropriateness of a proposed Height_ increase requested by an applicant in.. a.particular location nand it;also provides the applicant with an_ irrevocable approval for their request. She said currently, 'the height maximum in the EM District is -45 feet and the height maximums in the MI and M2. Districts are both 60' feet. This waiver would, allow the .Board to waivethe,height in the EM District up to 200 feet and the 'M 1' and. M2 _Districts up to 150 feet. She said the supplementary' use: regulations which correspond to the waiver state that architectural renderings' would need to be submitted by the applicant.' Also included is a, statement which would allow the Board. require additional buffering and screening; 'as well as additional distances; if the Board deems necessary to protect adjacent. uses. The Board. maY.also require 'additional conditions they. deem may,'.be necessary based on location, Ms..Perkins noted it is also. stipulated that the: waiver cannot be used to permit, height increases for sigds. Ms. Perkins said the DRRC discussed this amendment. in September.; the Board of Supervisors discussed.this, at their October 9, 2013 .meeting and sent it forward for public hearing. The Planning Commission.discussed the.amendmeni at their October 16, 2013 meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3029 Minutes of November 6„ 2013 5- Comm_ issioner Oates commented there,. Js no public 'hearing with the waiver and no notification is sent to any of they neighbors, unlike a CUP (conditional use permit). Ms. Perkins said this was , correct. Chairman Wilmot called. for citizen comments regarding the proposed amendment. No one came forward to speak and -Chairman Wilmot closed. the public comment portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Thomas commented .he would. have liked to have seen an increase in the base; height; nevertheless, he ' t ' hought' this: was a good move forward and he liked the amendment not being tied to a CUP `because thi i'nvol'ves permanent construction. Commissioner Thomas next moved to recommend approval of the amendment. This motion was,seconded by'Commissioner Mohn and was unanimously passed: BE IT RESOLVED, that the Fredericka County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval, of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI.— Business and Industrial Zoning Districts; Part 601, Dimensional and, Intensity 'Requirements; Section 1657601,.02, Dimensional and Intensity Requirements, Part 608, EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, Section 165 - 608.06 Height Limitations, -Article II Supplementary Use-Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Use §,, Part, 204, Additional -Regulations for SpecifcUses, Section 165 - 204.28, Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), Ml (Light Industrial), and M2 (Industrial General) District. These are revisions to increase the maximum height in the EM, MI, and M2 Zoning Districts with a Board of Supervisors' waiver and the addition' of supplementary use regulations. Note: Commissioners Dunlap; Kenney, and Madagan were absent,from the meeting.) Rezoning Application #03 -13 of Madison Village, submitted by Painter- Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 5116 acres;from,RA (Rural A "reas),Disfrict.to 46:26 acres :of RP- (Residential Performance) District and 5 acres ofB2 (Business General) District with proffers: The property is located on the west side of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), :approximately 1,000 feet, south of the intersection of Route 522 Front Royal Pike) and Route 645_ (Airport, Road). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District: Action.— Recommended. Approval with Proffers Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application, due to a possible conflict of interest:: Deputy :Director; Michael. T. Ruddy; reported the Planning, Commission tabled this application Ifor'90 days at their August 2,1,, 2013 meeting. Mr. Ruddy said the ,Commission had tabled,the request for a number of reasons,, primarily to enable the site to `be posted again and the public hearing to be adequately .noticed:, He ;said two items were identified by the, staff during the public hearing which addressed potential impacts and there was alsoconsiderable discussion regarding the applicant' and. the adjacent property owner meeting together: to work out some outstanding issues,: Frederick County Planning Commission Page, 3030 Minutes of November ;6, 2013 6 -: Mr. Ruddy nofed the applicant has made soiree modifications to their rezoning application to address the two items identified., A proffer statement dated September 5,, 2013 included a minimum number of units, 420, which provides a base density, of about eight _units- per acre. The applicant also established timing for the road connections to the adjacent property both to the west and to,the south. The access to the properties to the north;.the Russell 150 property'and the' Shepherd property to the north and, northeast, remains to be constructed with the initial phase of'the development. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant and the adjacent property-.owner `have met and held ,several discussions, but no agreement is in place at this time,. Mr. Ruddy concluded by stating the RP and B2: zoning designations are consistent;with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny /Eastern 'Frederick Urban. Area Plan and the potential impacts have been addressed with.the proffer statementand.more particularly, with the revision dated - September 5; 2013. Commissioner ,Ambrogi `commented the rezoning application before the Commission meets all the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and 'is in compliance. Mr. Ruddy said this was correct. Chairman Wilmot 'said the original application had a number of different types of residential units. She asked if that same variety was present in this; revised submittal; Mr.. Ruddy replied yes. He ,said the minimum number"of units has been established by proffer at 42'0 and the maximum is 640; all housing types are represented. Mr. John Lewis; with Painter - Lewis, P.L.C., introduced himself and Mr. Benjamin Butler, attorney, who were representing this^ project. Mr. Lewis said since the public hearing last August, they have worked on four issues raised by the Planning Commission. The first issue, regarding the ;minimum density; was resolved by placing the minimum and maximum, densities;` which ,are-_in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, within the proffer statement. The second `issue; the timing of construction of the internal roads, is detailed` °within the 'proffers and is tied to the different "phases of'the project. The third issue, regarding the :disappearance of the public. hearing sign, has been resolved and the sign has been. reposted.and is visible today: The fourth issue; obtaining a grading easement to.faci'litate the construction of-their entrance from Route 522, has not yet been resolved with the, adjacent property owner. Mr. Lewis said two' draft, agreements have been exchanged, but no resolution has been arrived at'this time. He said it was incumbent: upon the applicant to.reach an agreement in order for this project to move forward. Mr. Lewis requested the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to 'the Board of Supervisors on this application, in its current, state. Chairman Wilmot next called for any citizen comments and the following person came forward. to .speak: Mr. Michael. °Shepherd,, resident of the Shawnee Magisterial' District; stated that hei and his wife owned 'the °two B2- _zoned lots adjacent to the Madison Village project, to the south and west. Mr. Shepherd,said no "final agreement has been reached regarding.the access and easements. He noted that,he had filed a,.sitle plan, for his properties prior to the last public hearing and he is prepared to move forward with -his plan. Mr:, Shepherd said.he was._not, against the Madison Village project as; a practical matter; however; the outstanding: issue. is how the road could go in without grading easements and -'with his buildings so close to the edgy of,his property. No one else wished to. speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen cornment,portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3031 Minutes of November 6, 203 7- Commissioner Thomas asked the. staff :if it was possible to build this development without having the entrance and grading easement., He asked if another,access was available. Mr: Ruddy replied there are certainly other access alternatives, 'but`the most obvious one is the one initially'd'esigned. Mr. Ruddy said the intention is. for the parties to work together and come to some agreement where this can" be put in place either as originally, designed', or some modification of that either to the access •road or improvements to Route 52 -2. Commissioner Thomas inquired whether a restriction should be placed on this - project, that no construction may start until the, County has a VDOT- approv ".ed entrance or should the:Commissiorr simply move the rezoning forward and assume VDOT will not allow construction to start until there is a VDOT- approved entrance.. DeputyDirector= Transportation, John A. B i shop,, responded by stating VDOT will not let the applicant = operate in their .right -of- -way prior to any design being approved; they simply would not issue a permit the applicaawould need. to construct the entrance. Commissioner Ambrogi made a motion, to recommend approval of Rezoning., Application 03 -13 of Madison Village with the revised proffers based on the applicant's compliance with the Comprehensive -Plan and their compliance with all state and local ordinances. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn. Commissioner Unger raised a concern about whether the adjoining property may become land - locked because of the proposed. project. Commissioner Thomas stated unless the two property owners come to an agreement, there will be no access onto Route 522 and, therefore, no project. Commissioner Mohn stated from the Planning Commission's obligation. in terms of the application materials and the proffers; the General Development Plan provides the locations where those access points should be provided to ensure there, is interconnectivity; but.it is incumbent on the two property owners to work out a mutually - agreeable arrangement to facilitate -that: Commissioner Mohn believed this was a private element and the Commission has done what it can .do and should do and the staff, as well, to ensure the framework is there. Other Commission members agreed. Chairman Wilmot next called for the vote and the motion and second' for recommending approval was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning. Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #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 of RP (Residential Performance) District and -5 acres of 82: Usiness.General)'Districtwith "proffers. The`property is'located on the west side of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 1,000 -feet south of the intersection of Route 522; (Front Royal Pike) and Route 645 '(Airport Road)." The property is further identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Note:. Commissioner .Oates abstained from voting; Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Madagan were absent,from the meeting:) Frederick, County Planning Commission Page 3032 Minutes of November 6, 2013 8- ACTION ITEM: Waiver Request by Lawson and, Silek, P L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse ,Lime & Stone Company.; to allow the construction of'a 193400t tall kiln at the existing Clearbrook Quarry located off Quarry Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff received a waiver request from Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime and Stone; Company., to allow the construction of a 193 -foot tall kiln at the existing Clearbrook Quarry. Ms. Perkins said the waiver is for the construction of.a,kiln with skin of up to'200, feet in height.. She said architectural' renderings of the structure as well .as photographs were provided by the -applicant. Ms. Perkins said the County is currently processing an ordinance. amendment that would allow structures 'in. the EM .,(Extractive Manufacturing) District to exceed the 45 -foot district height maximum, up to 200 feet, with a Board of Supervisors waiver. Mr. Thomas (Ty) .Moore Lawson of Lawson and Silek, P:L.0 was representing this waiver request for Carmeuse Lime and Stone Company. Mr. -Lawson said the structure is a combination of silos and exhaust and the top portion will be enclosed by the skin. He, said the structure., could be built without the skin; however, the company believes it is more visually appealing with the skin and will cut down on the noise. Commissioner. Thomas' as - ked Mn Lawson if he knew the width of the structure at the top. Mr. Lawson said he did not have that-dimnsion. Commissioner Thomas, believed this was'a good project for the County.; he thought it was in an appropriate location. Commissioner Crockett pointed out that Clearbrook Fire & Rescue Company has advised that the operational height on their ladder'truck is only 85 feet. However; Commissioner Crocket made-a motion to recommend approval. of the waiver request for a kiln with skin at the Clearbrook facility,, not to exceed 200 feet in height. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED; that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the waiver requesi,by Lawson and Silek, .P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime & Stone Company,, to allow the construction of a 193 -foot tall kiln, with' skin, :at the existing Clearbrook Quarry located off Quarry Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Note:", Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Madagan were absent.from the meeting.) Frederick'Collr yPlanning Commission Page 3033 Minutes. of November 6, 2013 9- INFORMATION ITEM: Master Development Plan 403 -13 for The 'Townes at`Tasker, submitted by Pennoni Assoicates, Inc:, to develop a 49 -unit townhouse development. The subject property is located on the east side of Tasker Road (Rt -. 642) and` .north of Rutherford Lane (Rt' 846), approximately' 0.7 miles south of the I -81 Interchange 310. The property is further identified_ by P.I.N. 75 -A -86 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. No Action Required Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, reported a revised master development plan- (MDP) has been provided by the applicant and a copy has been placed before the Planning- Commission this evening. Ms: Perkins said she highlighted the changes for the Commission, which includes a minor acreage change due to a boundary line adjustment and a minor sidewalk change., She said the proposal for the development of 10.2 acres, the adjusted- acreage, of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) with .a total of 49 single - family attached townhouseunits. Ms. Perkins reported the property is located within the UDA (Urban Development, Area) and the SWSA (Sewer & Wafer Service Area) and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows the property with a residential land use designation. She noted that access is proposed via one full entrance onto Tasker Road. She also reported the property, is being utilized as a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) receiving property and, will be developed to the RP (Residential Performance) standards as far as density and development standards". Ms:- Perkins said the property will'be utilizing 49 transferred.rights from four parcels,, located off Cedar Creek; Grade and Hunting Ridge Road, .and are located within Frederick County's sending areas. Ms. Perkins "stated the applicant currently`has the TDR rights to develop the 49 units and the remainder of the site;: identified as "future. development area," could be developed through additional transferred rights or a; rezoning. Ms. Perkins added:this is the 'first property to utilize the TOR ordinance in Frederick County. Deputy Director - Transportation, John A. Bishop, stated concerns have been raised regarding the proposed entrance onto Tasker. Road Mr. Bishop said both the staff and VDOT have urged ther applicant to relocate the entrance to. Rutherford Lane; however, neither ithe Planning Staff nor VDOT has the authority to make 'the applicant move the entrance to Rutherford Lane, because VDOT entrance spacing can be met. He noted -the entrance has not yet been designed because the applicant must meet other VDOT criteria, such as site distance and turn lanes. Mr: Bishop commented the applicant is much involved in the design process at this point and there has been considerable exchange between the applicant and VDOT'as they work to corne up with an approvable entrance under VDOT standards. Commissioner Thomas raised a number of safety concerns with 'the only entrance to the development being on Tasker Road. He questioned whether it was possible to get adequate site distance at this location„ because of the vertical curve coming, down the hill towards the proposed entrance. He said vehicles coming, down the hill typically exceed -the posted 45mph speed, limit. Commissioner Thomas inquired about the amount of service degradation that-would, occur once this is 'full'y developed. He noted that with the amount of-trips per day leaving the development, the back up from the Route 37 signal, will probably extend down to this proposed entrance. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether this will be a safe entrance. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3034 Minutes of November 6, 2013 10- W.Bishop Agre-O&WAh tffe:issues raised-. He said unfoftUnatoly, t4js development snot one, that meets the-Ahresliold where. the staff can require a TIA (transportation impactanal sis);,theref6rb,, he'. could. not. answer speci'Pical'ly_on'badk-up queuing irifori-nation. Mr. Bishop said the applicant will be constructing a -left -turn' lane; He sQhi I s g,re di development, as opp.-Osizd to entering the development,, And; he,predicted there would he a, -future service degradation, problem. Commissioner. `Un ger, asked where the preferred 'entrance location, would be. Mn ,-Bishop suggested 'tdkihgddvantage.Of.RCth.6rHe said the; spacing, is probably not :ideal; t peciAv'with theboundary line. 4djustmeq(,'bOt,, there js ii .,be 'shoe-homed in;.he believedjaarea, where could' it- would be a- better entrance focAionAhan -fhe,i.one,on Tasker Road. Commissioner Oates asked 'if the appl=icant. is using the new proposed revisions to the TDR ordinance, or the 'older v'ersion' Ms. Perkins said, this ...project was—based on the: older TDks. Commissioner `Oates commented .if the applicant would _have, waited, f6r ih&fevis'ed. TDRs-- the Y, wouldn't hav& had to transfer go manyan . y q : e , vle . lopmeiit.fights:'for townhouses. Nfsl. Perkins replied if the proposed TDR revisions are ;adopted,, there; is ihenoIential .,for, the a P plicant-io' ,siii5mit:arevisedMDP. Mr; Ronald Mi's:f6w$ky. with Peinnoni Associdies,'Iftc. was present to, representi this application. Mr. Mislowsky fert. 6-o6fident, the proposed entrance- onto Thsker. Road. will meet,VDOT's road. design requirements4br site distance, turn lanes; and length, of 'tluft), lanes;, etc.. He said an entrance onto Rutherford ,Uanewas ihitially_,afteffipieO however; rfUdnly.,W 'ih jmprovemep_ls needed onIere,_ e same 1 Rutherf6rd Lane I as on Ta§ker°46a:d; but isome additional' obstacles were ,encountered` on Rutherford as we'll. . 44e said a. large power pole iiss,situAted on the northeast corner of the kuthotford.Ldne;Jasker Road intersection, the applicant' would .be required by VDJOTto straighten ouf4his inteTs ection which would require ttfe,'relocatiori-cififie: power pole. A4diti6nallyiheWfdeni"ng°wou'ld,neodtobedktend6dactbssihe box' hening,of theN: cuVert whi h carries eOpequon Creek under Taskerk6dd' -this, would fequire.. Ieifgt I culvert As well. Last - ly ' ili6, entrance ,onto Rutherford Lane WOW-ypstidt.in the site being roughlyhb. said: A-f6bt-,lbwer than' where ii i p send M , islow ese' conditions added a far moreis .ye: Y -,sky' believed th complex condition to the entrance designthan. what would he,reqvired on Ta'-sker Road:: Mr. utijizihg the, older TDR. ordinance, but they expect to come back with , a,_,revIsed--MljP as the TDRR condit I ion -changes. . He -said the developer is working on acquiring additional tOks'ih or iIJ out, the ;7sfte,, Mt. Misl all theder-to fally'bi.i ows-ky stated studies Were done, using a total, of" 80' townhou-se.s, as, welt. as the trip' calculations for the proposed entrance- No, other comments were made, or concerns raised. Nol.Acti6n,,,was needed 'Or.:faketilbythe. Commission a,t,tN 19 time; OTHER Cancellation of the November '* 1013, Meetin ChaifnianWilmot; announced there w -..for the CbftimissioW§ were no. pending applications, Noyotnbef 20, 0, 2013 ., -meeting'. Ff! dq, (k,Qbunty, Pjanning'Qomrn'ission Mifidt6s;6f-November'.6, 26113 M Ugon'motion made by.Commissioner- -Oates and. seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the November 20, 2013 . meeting was canceleda by a unanimous. vote. ADJOURNMENT` No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7::50`p.m. Respectful lysubmitted I V V-- Eric R awrence; Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3036 Minutes.of November 6, 2013