Loading...
DRRC 01-23-14 Meeting Minutes1 DRRC Meeting – 01/23/2014 Members present: Greg Unger, Jay Banks, Kevin Kenney, Larry Ambrogi, Tim Stowe, Dwight Shenk, June Wilmot Absent: Whit Wagner, Gary Oates, Eric Lowman, Roger Thomas Staff: Candice Perkins Item 1: Election of Chairman and Vic e Chairman. Greg Unger was reelected chairman and Kevin Kenney was reelected vice chairman. Item 2: Landscaping Requirements. Continued discussion on potential revisions to the landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to the Business Friendly Committee recommendations. Staff stated that the text from the suggested change memo was inserted into the current landscaping requirements so that each suggestion could be seen in context with the current ordinance. The DRRC acknowledged that the landscaping requirements were recently discussed by the DRRC and a number of changes were made and that those changes were adopted by the Board in January of 2013.  The DRRC acknowledged that the landscaping requirements should be contained in one section and suggested the parking lot landscaping be moved to the overall landscaping section. Staff stated that they would make this change and bring it back to the committee at their next meeting.  The suggestion that tree maturity be acknowledged was questioned. The committee stated that most trees used for landscaping don’t grow to their maturity height (removal by owner, topping, dying out). Looking at the mature height reduces the n umber of trees a site would reduce the landscaping up front, but wouldn’t provide adequate buffers for neighbors or parking lot shading.  The DRRC stated that the ordinance already clearly differentiates between residential and commercial sites in regards to the landscaping requirements and no changes are necessary.  The DRRC was satisfied with the current on lot landscaping and acknowledged that the Rural Areas landscaping requirement was removed a number of years ago.  The DRRC stated that a Tree Commission is usually something a larger locali ty or city would have and that adding one would only create another hurdle for development.  The DRRC discussed tree preservation and stated that it is a landscaping option (you can preserve or remove and replant).  The DRRC discussed the buffers and the comment about infill. The committee was satisfied with the current requirements and stated that infill should be cohesive with adjacent uses or else they need to provide buffers. 2 Item 3: Master Development Plans. Continued discussion on potential revisions to the Master Development Plan requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to the Business Friendly Committee recommendations. Staff stated that at the DRRC’s October meeting the committee wanted to see an additional waiver added to the MDP requirements that allowed an applicant to process a detailed site plan in lieu of a MDP. Staff stated that text stating “A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The site plan must contain all informa tion generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.” was added to all zoning districts. The DRRC was satisfied with the changes and sent the revision forward for discussion by the Planning Commission. Item 4: Height Exemptions. Discussion on potential revisions to the allowances for exemptions to the structure height maximums currently contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff stated that in September of 2013 the DRRC discussed EM and M1/M2 Height increases and forwarded recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Ultimately the Board approved height waivers in those districts, but directed the DRRC to review the existing height exceptions for possible eliminations. The Board of Supervisors felt that some of the existing exceptions should be removed and the items be brought forward as waivers. Committee members asked if there were correspond ing definitions for the items specified in the height exemptions. Staff stated that some were defined and others were not. The committee expressed confusion over certain exemptions and wanted staff to provide definitions for all items and bring the text back to the DRRC at a later meeting. Item 5: Floodplain Overlay District. Discussion on revisions to Part 702 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Districts. Staff stated that this change to the floodplain overlay districts was in resp onse to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation changing their model floodplain ordinance. Those changes resulted in necessary revisions to the County’s ordinance to meet the minimum regulatory standards required in a fully compliant floodplain ordinance. The DRRC acknowledged the changes and understood that this was a necessary change to be compliant. The committee had no changes and sent the amendments forward for discussion by the Planning Commission. Other: The commission requested to look at outdoor storage requirements in industrial parks on their work program.