PC 06-01-16 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
June 1, 2016
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab)
2) May 4, 2016 Minutes ....................................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING Items
5) Conditional Use Permit #04-16 for Vicki Nash, which submitted for a cottage
occupation nail salon. The property is located at 215 Fruit Orchard Drive, Gore,
Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 17-22A-19 in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran ...................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Part 401 – RA
Rural Areas District §165-401.06 Permitted lot sizes. Revisions to the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance to provide for an allowance to permit divisions from rural
preservation lots for public road dedications or utility dedications.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (C)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
7) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Discussion
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (D)
8) 2016 PC Retreat Summary
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (E)
9) Other
Adjourn
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as
a part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments;
and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non-public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during
the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the Information/Discussion
Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan
in which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many
locations; however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional
land uses in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District - Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage the
future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP - A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS - Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman-at-large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy-making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC - The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at-large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
A
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3331
Minutes of May 4, 2016
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on May 4, 2016.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary
R. Oates, Stonewall District; Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee
District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston,
Back Creek District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E.
Triplett, Gainesboro District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District
STAFF PRESENT: Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; Mark A. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision
Administrator; M. Tyler Klein, Planner; and Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the May 4, 2016 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.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their March 16, 2016. Upon motion made by
Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the Planning Commission unanimously
adopted the minutes of their April 6, 2016 meeting with a noted correction.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3332
Minutes of May 4, 2016
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee – Mtg. 5/2/16
Commissioner Oates reported the Transportation Committee discussed the traffic
situation involving Oakdale Crossing and The Ravens. He continued that the citizens of Oakdale
Crossing prepared a petition with signatures. This petition has been forwarded to VDOT to investigate
how to implement traffic calming in this area. Commissioner Oates reported the second item discussed
was the Eastern Road Plan Map; there were a few minor changes needed due to the changes in federal
guidelines pertaining to road classifications. A discussion was held on House Bill 2; applications are
moving forward and a new application has been added thus being the area of Senseny Road west of
Oakdale Crossing for possible turn lanes. Commissioner Oates reported that updates have been given on
County projects such as Snowden Bridge. The committee assigned John Bishop the task of looking into
TDR’s from the perspective of transportation and using them for commercial instead of residential, to be
presented at the June Transportation Committee meeting.
Board of Supervisors Report – Mtg. 4/27/16
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Blaine Dunn reported the Board of
Supervisors approved REZ #02-16 for I-81 West Business Park. He noted the Board also approved two
outdoor festival permits.
-------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Planning Commission.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #03-16 for Shawnee Canning Company Inc., submitted by Painter-Lewis, PLC to rezone
2.10 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with Proffers.
The property is located at 231 Cross Junction Road, less than 0.3 miles from the intersection with
US Route 522 North (North Frederick Pike) in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is identified
by Property Identification Number 18-A-41.
Action – Recommend Approval
Assistant Director, Candice E. Perkins reported this application is to rezone a total of
2.10 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with Proffers, to
accommodate office uses within an existing structure on the property. Ms. Perkins continued the property
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3333
Minutes of May 4, 2016
is within the limits of the Cross Junction Rural Community Center which typically consist of small lot
residences and commercial uses similar to a village. Ms. Perkins directed the Planning Commission to
mapping, outlining the property and the surrounding area.
Ms. Perkins reported within the proffer statement there is a limitation on the use of the
renovated building and the rezoned parcel to office uses as shown on the GDP; there is a limit on the
maximum number of employees for the office to 25. Ms. Perkins noted the proffer also stated this
number could be reduced if the health system approved for the property requires a reduction in that
number. Ms. Perkins mentioned there is a proffer of $500 to Fire and Rescue payable upon the first
building permit. She presented the GDP for the property.
Ms. Perkins concluded the requested B2 designation is limited and considering parcels
surrounding this parcel are zoned B2 and M1, this request appears to be consistent with the goals of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. John Lewis of Painter-Lewis PLC representing the Applicant noted the need for
office space at this current business. He stated the existing house on the property will be renovated if the
rezoning is approved.
Commissioner Unger inquired if the existing drain field will accommodate this use. Mr.
Lewis reported it would at this time and if there is further expansion it will need to be reviewed again.
Commissioner Crockett congratulated the family involved with this application who was
the recipient of the Department of Agriculture Incentive Grant. He strongly supports this application.
Commissioner Kenney commented he met with the owners and noted this is a generation business that
needs the support of the community.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Kenney
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning #03-16 for Shawnee Canning Company Inc., submitted by Painter-Lewis, PLC to
rezone 2.10 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with Proffers.
The property is located at 231 Cross Junction Road, less than 0.3 miles from the intersection with US
Route 522 North (North Frederick Pike) in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is identified by
Property Identification Number 18-A-41.
(Note: Commissioner Mohn and Commissioner Thomas were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Cancelation of the regular meeting on May 18, 2016
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s May 18, 2016 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3334
Minutes of May 4, 2016
A motion was made by Commissioner Oates to cancel the May 18, 2016 meeting of the
Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously passed.
-------------
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 Manuel and unanimously passed. The meeting
adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director
B
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04-16
VICKI NASH
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: May 20, 2016
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 06/01/16 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 06/22/16 Pending
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Nail
Salon. Should the Planning Commission find this application for a nail salon to be appropriate,
staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the CUP:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No signage allowed with this Conditional Use Permit.
3. Hours of operation shall be 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday.
4. No more than five (5) customers per day.
5. No employees permitted, beyond those residing on the premises.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit
Following this public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer
a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
Page 2
CUP #04-16, Vicki Nash
May 20, 2016
LOCATION: This property is located at 215 Fruit Orchard Drive, Gore, VA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 17-22A-19
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community)
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) Use: Residential
South: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) Use: Residential Use: Residential
East: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) Use: Residential
West: State of West Virginia Use: N/A
PROPOSED USE: Nail salon
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: Driveway entrance access to be located in West
Virginia. Therefore, VDOT has no comments.
Frederick County Inspections: Area shall comply with The Virginia Existing Building Code,
The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 302-B, Business Use Group of the
International Building Code/2012. Other Code that applies is ICC/ANSI A117.1-09 Accessible
and Usable Buildings and Facilities.
Conditional Use of existing basement area as nail spa. A change of use permit is required.
Please submit a detailed floor plan with your permit. A plumbing permit is required for the foot
sink installation. Sink shall drain to an approved waste disposal system. A mechanical permit is
required for the installation of the required ventilation. (T403.3, IMC 12-20 cfm/person is
required for Beauty Salons). Each nail station shall be provided exhaust with a source caption
system of 50 cfm per station. Lever type hardware shall be provided on all doors along the
accessible route and business areas. 20% ANSI A117-09 rule applies.
Page 3
CUP #04-16, Vicki Nash
May 20, 2016
Winchester-Frederick County Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department
cannot approve a commercial business to be added to an existing drainfield. Please consult with
a private onsite evaluator (OSE) to submit an application for approval with a permit.
Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plans approved.
Planning and Zoning: The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County
(“Comprehensive Plan”) provides guidance when considering land use actions. The location o f
this proposed nail salon business is in a part of the County that is to remain rural in nature, and
not part of any current land use study. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows a nail
salon as a cottage occupation in the R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) zoning district
with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The proposed use will take place within the
Applicant’s dwelling. There will be no employees with use, and the customer base five of (5)
customers per day, with hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M.
6:00 P.M. The Applicant has agreed to the customer base, hours, and days of operation. There
will be no signs with this Conditional Use Permit. Based upon the limited scale of the proposed
use and evaluation of the property, it appears this use would not have any significant impacts on
the adjoining properties.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/01/16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the
following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No signage allowed with this Conditional Use Permit.
3. Hours of operation shall be 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
4. No more than five (5) customers per day.
5. No employees permitted, beyond those residing on the premises.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
HAMPSHIRECOUNTYWEST VIRGINIA
17 22A 19
181FRUITORCHARD DR
270SAWMILL DR
230SAWMILL DR
121FRUITORCHARD DR
190TIMBERRIDGE RD
FRU
I
T
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
D
R
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 9, 2016Staff: mcheran
CUP # 04 - 16Vicki NashPIN:17 - 22A - 19Nail Salon
0 180 36090 Feet
SAW
M
I
L
L
D
R
CUP #04-16
CUP # 04 - 16Vicki NashPIN:17 - 22A - 19Nail Salon
HAMPSHIRE COUNTYWEST VIRGINIA
RIDGEVIEW RD
HAMPSHIRECOUNTYWEST VIRGINIA
17 22A 19
181FRUITORCHARD DR
270SAWMILL DR
230SAWMILL DR
121FRUITORCHARD DR
190TIMBERRIDGE RD
FRU
I
T
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
D
R
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 9, 2016Staff: mcheran
CUP # 04 - 16Vicki NashPIN:17 - 22A - 19Nail Salon
0 180 36090 Feet
SAW
M
I
L
L
D
R
CUP #04-16
CUP # 04 - 16Vicki NashPIN:17 - 22A - 19Nail Salon
HAMPSHIRE COUNTYWEST VIRGINIA
RIDGEVIEW RD
C
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment
Dedication of Public Utilities on Rural Preservation Lots
DATE: May 13, 2016
Staff has received a request to revise the Zoning Ordinance to provide for an allowance to permit
divisions from rural preservation lots for public road dedications or utility dedications. Currently the
Zoning Ordinance prohibits all future divisions from rural preservation tracts.
Staff has prepared a minor revision to provide an allowance for the boundaries of rural preservation lots
to be modified, provided that the future division (subdivision) would only be allowed for the widening of
an existing VDOT owned road or for a public utility dedication.
The DRRC discussed this amendment at their February 2016 meeting. The DRRC agreed with the
proposed changes, with minor revisions, and the item was forwarded to the Planning Commission for
discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on April 6, 2016. A Commission Member
inquired why we would eliminate new roads from consideration. Staff explained that they didn’t want to
create a way to circumvent the ordinance and provide an allowance for lots that previously did not have
access to dedicate a roadway through an existing rural preservation lot. Staff stated that the ordinance
was crafted to limit the allowance for utilities and existing state roads to ensure the protection of the
platted rural preservation lot. Ultimately, the Planning Commission agreed with the changes and sent
the item forward for review by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item
on April 27, 2016; the Board of Supervisors agreed with the proposed changes and sent the amendment
forward for public hearing.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for public hearing. A recommendation
from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please
contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
CEP/pd
Attachment 1
Original language
Draft revisions
Chapter 165 – Zoning
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-401.06 Permitted lot sizes.
C. Rural preservation lots.
(1) Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts
over 20 acres in size, subject to the following:
(a) Sixty percent or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel
(Rural Preservation Tract).
(b) This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot.
(c) No future division of this designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted,
other than for the widening of existing VDOT road right-of-ways or public utility
dedications, unless all the following are met:
i. The division results in an overall acreage increase to the Rural Preservation
Tract; and
ii. Acreage added to the preservation tract may come from areas internal or
external to the rural preservation subdivision; and
iii. Acreage from the preservation tract may not be adjusted into parcels outside
of the rural preservation subdivision; and
iv. The Rural Preservation Tract continues to meet all requirements of Chapter
165 and 144.
D
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP - Director
RE: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Discussion – PC Retreat
DATE: May 20, 2016
At the recent Frederick County Planning Commission Retreat, the Planning Commission
discussed, among many other things, Conditional Use Permits. The Planning
Commission took this opportunity to review the best practices associated with their
evaluation of Conditional Use Permits and the legal basis for Conditional Use Permits
within the context of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia.
This item is presented to the Planning Commission to ensure that the discussion of this
item addressed all of the questions the Planning Commission had regarding Conditional
Use Permits. Staff will be available at the Planning Commission meeting to provide a
brief summary of the Retreat discussion and to answer any additional comments the
Planning Commission may have.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to provide additional input.
MTR/dlw
E
2016 Frederick County Planning Commission Annual Retreat
Meeting Summary
Frederick County Board Room, Winchester VA
Wednesday April 20, 2016
Meeting Attendees:
Planning Commissioners Present: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Christopher M.
Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District
Board of Supervisors Present: Charles S. DeHaven Jr., Chairman At-Large; Robert Hess, Gainesboro
District; Gary Lofton, Back Creek District; Blaine P. Dunn, Red Bud District; Judith McCann-Slaughter,
Stonewall District
County Administration Present: Brenda G. Garton, County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant
County Administrator; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney
Planning Staff Present: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; John A. Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation;
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Shannon L.
Conner, Administrative Assistant; Kirstin N. Twardon, GIS Analyst; David Burke, Zoning Inspector
Other Guest/Attendees: Mark Loring, City of Winchester; Cliff Balderson, VDOT; John Foote, Attorney
Planning Commission Topics (Part 1) (Presented by Charles Dunlap)
Overview:
The Planning Commission has identified items in need of discussion. A Commission Member presented
the following items and opened the floor for any discussion.
Conditional Use Permits
Rezoning Applications
Commission and Board communication
Planning work sessions (should this be used more often for larger more complex
rezoning applications)
Status of Transportation improvements in the County (such as the I-81 interchange
project)
Future of Transportation credits/proffers
Implementation of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s)
What are issues of concern for the Board of Supervisor members?
Discussion/Responses:
Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
Confirmation that CUP’s transfer with the property, are there any provisions to this
In the past a condition could be placed on the CUP that if the property changed hands
the CUP would be dissolved
Allowing CUP to transfer with the property can make it more valuable
A condition can be placed on the CUP that if the property is sold the CUP is no longer in
effect
The CUP should be strictly based on land use
Should more information be gathered and are we collecting the “right” information
needed for determining if a CUP is appropriate
Possibly ask property owner if they would like the CUP to convey if the property is sold
Planning Commission has done a good job of balancing and filtering CUP’s
Should they align more with what is accepted in other communities
Noted the CUP system is not broken and there are not many complaints on existing
CUP’s
Planning Commission needs to be comfortable on a case by case basis in regards to
CUP’s
Commission and Board Communications
Is there enough feedback being provided
Is the Planning Commission providing enough information
What additional input may be needed
BOS Members feel this is working well
Many resources available such as Staff, web, video of meetings, etc.
Find a way for items to come back to the Planning Commission if the Board does not
approve
This typically only happens if information becomes available after the item has been to
the Planning Commission
Having the Liaison is important
Rare occasions that Planning Commission approves an item and the Board goes the
other direction
Talking to Supervisors is a tool that needs to be utilized more
BOS Member noted extremely helpful to hear from Planning Commission Members
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s)
Start using TDR’s for business and industrial development
Citizen noted to a Commission Member the TDR process is very difficult
How can we make the TDR process easier and more accommodating
Possibly hold a seminar on the implementation of TDR’s
Commission Member noted good commercial and industrial parcels are few and far
between
Are there other municipalities using TDR’s
It was noted that yes, Fairfax County is
Planning Commission Business (Presented by Mr. John Foote)
Overview:
Presentation and discussion on fundamental Planning Commission roles in the review and analysis of
Conditional Use Permits, Rezoning applications, including Proffer Condition Amendments, and an
update on the latest proffer legislation.
We live in a unique jurisdiction
Frederick County is extremely stable in Personnel
CUP’s and Rezoning’s are both “land use acts”
Fairly debatable standard and highly unlikely a localities decision will be reversed
Parameters of legislative decision making is great and boils down to an operative
Comprehensive Plan
Policy decision on how land should be used
Keep in mind the extent of your authority
CUP’s
Statutes say you may issue special exceptions
Issued under suitable regulations and safeguards
May impose reasonable conditions
May elect to put in RA only and not RP
Floating zones may be implemented and used until put somewhere
Convey with owner or land? All land use decisions run with the land (not owner), may
elect to make it user specific
May impose time limits
Our jurisdiction does not tend to “over reach” in these areas
Special statute in Virginia – if you impose an unconditional requirement it now becomes
unconstitutional
Proffer Reform Bill – General Assembly
In 1975 enacted Old Conditional Zoning which states the landowner may proffer
conditions in addition to the zoning – localities figured it was a good way to mitigate
expenses
Opposition came from the development industry
What is the fundamental problem with this?
In turn came the Proffer Reform Bill – which means it is no longer lawful for a locality to
accept an unreasonable proffer
What is an unreasonable proffer – a proffer that does not mitigate specific attributable
impacts to the development
Most jurisdictions are in the process of sorting through this new legislation
Applies to rezoning applications effective July 1, 2016
Any rezoning approved prior to July 1, 2016 cannot be fixed
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR’s)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) used by most jurisdictions
Has not seen a jurisdiction have TDR’s work smoothly
How do you physically make it work?
Discussion/Responses:
How do you address the TDR issues as a Board
Need to focus on the impact that is economically attributable to the rezoning specifically
Traffic Impact Model becomes an issue
What is the problem we are trying to solve with TDR’s in the commercial sector? Is
TDR’s the solution or is there something else we need to be looking at?
The Board has heard very few proposals to use TDR’s to offset commercial proffers
Was there discussion in the development of TDR legislation to allow restrictions and a
timeframe?
The statute does not contemplate it’s expiration regarding TDR’s
Transportation (presented by Mr. John Bishop)
Overview:
Presentation and discussion on updates to revenue sharing projects and applications, rezoning and
masterplan activities, grant activities, MPO activities, and the status of Route 37 efforts as well as VDOT
projects in the County such as the Exit 310 project and Sulphur Springs Road.
Revenue Sharing
In the past 7 years the revenue sharing program has grown from an occasional
participation item to a robust program with projects in the pipeline with a total value of
over $40 million at virtually no cost to Frederick County taxpayers. These are the current
projects:
o Snowden Bridge Blvd.
o Tevis Extension, bridge over I-81, Airport Rd.
o Valley Mill Road realignment
o Renaissance Dr.
o Coverstone Dr.
o Route 11 North
Grant Activities
Staff is active in the various access programs on an annual basis to include:
o Rail Access – Carmeuse and Trex
o Recreational Access – Sherando Park
o Economic Development Access – Carroll Industrial Park and Zachary Anne Ln.
o Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund – Coordinating an application with
EDA
Rezonings, Masterplans, Site Plans
“Case Planner” varies from rezoning to rezoning; transportation staff is involved in all
rezonings. In many rezonings this is a major component of analysis and discussion
Masterplan involvement by transportation staff varies; some such as the current
Heritage Commons masterplan require extensive involvement while others require
much less.
Site Plan involvement varies
Ongoing Planning and VDOT Coordination
Ongoing Planning
o Interstate, Primary, and Secondary
o Eastern Road Plan
o Area Plans
VDOT Coordination
o All local projects
o CTB public hearing and coordination
o Maintenance items as needed
o Citizen concerns
Eastern Road Plan
Provided mapping and noted the changes
o Important to note the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is only a micro simulation
o Sulphur Spring Road update
o I-81 there are no current studies
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Technical Advisory Committee
Project Steering Committee
o MPO Long Range Plan
o North Winchester Area Plan
o Various Special Studies or state/federal coordination items
New Initiatives
Results of new initiatives taken on in the past year such as the new group developing
safety related projects and improving communications, the very successful citizen
transportation forum that was held, and upcoming studies:
o Safety Project Development
o Transportation Forums
o Upcoming Studies – the bar is raising, need to be completely thorough
House Bill 2
Round 1
o System development participation
o Applications (Route 37 and Route 277)
Round 2
o Projects in the hopper: Route 11 North, Realignment of Red Bud Rd.,
Realignment of I-81 ramp to Route 11, Intersection of Crestleigh Dr. and
Senseny Rd., Exit 313 bridge work, Intersection of 522 and Papermill Rd.,
Intersection of Route 11 South and Shawnee Dr., Route 37 at exit 310 to Route
522, Route 277 from exit 307 to Double Church Rd., intersection of Warrior Dr.
and Route 277
Discussion/Responses:
Possible placement of a mirror at the intersection of Senseny Rd. and Crestleigh Dr.
Suggestion to travel Sulphur Springs Rd. rather than through Oakdale
Are some of the smaller communities getting involved with House Bill 2?
Competition increasing with House Bill 2 however there is no cap on the number of
applications you can submit
With other communities creating a Transportation Department what do we need to do
to stay ahead of the game?
Comment from VDOT: Frederick County came out good with the funding, apply for
small items, commended our staff and their dedication, our County is in a good position
right now
How do you address these issues down the road
MPO can help provide this information
State of the County (presented by Brenda Garton and Michael Ruddy)
Budget has been adopted
Proposed an 8% increase and reached a compromise of 4%
Three department head positions have been filled
Residential building permits continue to increase
Population estimates for 2015 were 82,623 vs. 2030 at 119,419
Reviewed Planning Area Analysis
15,000 to 16,000 vacant lots in the County
Comprehensive Planning
Overview:
The Code of Virginia, 15.2-2230 state “At least once every five years the comprehensive plan shall be
reviewed by the local Planning Commission to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan”.
The three-phase approach and schedule for the 5 year review and update of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan was initiated in the summer of 2015. The first phase was completed in September and the second
phase was concluded in March, 2016. As we move into the final and third phase we have the
opportunity to further describe the process to date and the important public outreach part of the 2035
update.
Phase 1 – CPPC review and update of Appendix II; Background analyses and supporting
studies:
o Overview and demographic analysis
o Economic analysis
o Land use analysis; including SWSA needs analysis with FCSA strategies
Discussion/Responses, and C&I analysis of the 25/75 ratio throughout the
County
o During this phase, staff prepared a draft update to the relevant parts of
Appendix II and presented them to the CPPC for their review and endorsement
during this time
Phase 2 – CPPC and Blue Ribbon Group review and update the key sections of the Plan
Including:
o Residential Development, Business Development, Transportation, Natural
Resources, Historical Resources, and Public Facilities (FCSA, FCPS, and Parks and
Rec)
o During this phase, staff worked with the Blue Ribbon Panel to evaluate and
update the above elements of the plan to ensure that the plan is accurate and
relevant, and proactive in its approach to meeting the future needs of the
community. The Blue Ribbon Panel was made up of community members, in a
similar approach to how the 2030 Plan was created
Phase 3 – Planning Commission Review of the 2035 Update followed by Board of
Supervisors direction to move forward with additional public outreach:
o Additional public outreach and community meetings in May/June
o Targeted outreach will also occur to all of those supporting resources identified
in each section of the draft plan
o CPPC/PC/BOS joint work session to review results of public input and any
adjustments made to the draft in July/August
o PC and BOS public hearing process and approval in September/October
Discussion/Responses:
Citizen participation have been very valuable
Commission Member emphasized the need for involvement from all
Share with the Board of Supervisors the various groups involved
Mapping has been so useful, wants to see this continued
More steps to the process have provided for these types of discussion
More information will be provided to absorb as much as you can
Due to a great staff we have a great Comprehensive Plan
Keep in mind as Planning Commissioners we need to tie our negative votes to the
Comprehensive Plan, to our ordinances, to the Transportation Plan, and to the impacts
of those plans so we can give the Board the right defendable evidence of our decision