Loading...
PC 04-02-14 Meeting Minutes Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3074 Minutes of April 2, 2014 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 April 2, 2014. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Stephen Slaughter, Jr., Winchester Planning Commission Liaison. ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk. ----------- CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the April 2, 2014 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 Manuel, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting. ------------- MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the minutes of the March 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3075 Minutes of April 2, 2014 COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission (EDC) – 3/07/14 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported the EDC discussed the annual report. He said some of the interesting observations were that the tax base for Winchester-Frederick County was up in 2013 from 2012; average wages were up during the same period; and the unemployment rate is dropping within the same time frame. He said only one item was somewhat negative and that was the average wage for the Winchester-Frederick County area, which is about $10,000 less than the average wage for the State. He noted Winchester-Frederick County is $42,512 and the average wage for the State is $52,000. ------------- Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 4/14/14 Mtg. Commissioner Mohn reported the next CPPC meeting is scheduled for April 14, 2014. He said work is continuing on the South Frederick Land Use Study. -------------- Sanitation Authority (SA) – 3/18/14 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported the following information from the SA meeting: total customer base for water is 14,304 and for sanitation is 13,549; rainfall for March was average at 3.16 inches; water production for the Diehl Plant was 2.57mgd and the Anderson Plant was 1.78mgd; .85mgd was purchased from the City of Winchester; the daily average water use was normal at 5.2mgd; the Diehl Plant rose about four feet within the previous month and a half; and the Anderson Plant rose about three feet within the previous month and a half. Commissioner Unger reported the Parkins Mill Plant is experiencing some issues with high nitrogen, which is coming from the Hood Plant. He added that water leaks are down to only about 5% for March, which is very good. ------------- Transportation Committee – 3/24/14 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the Transportation Committee discussed the Route 277 Improvement Project. He said the cost of the right-of-way acquisition is more than what was budgeted, so although VDOT will engineer the plans for the full design of build out, the construction will probably be short, somewhere around Double Church Road or a little less for now, until more money can be obtained. In addition, Commissioner Oates reported that the Shenandoah Project came back to the Committee and private streets were again discussed. He said the Transportation Committee directed that this item be sent to the DRRC. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3076 Minutes of April 2, 2014 Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) – 3/27/14 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported the DRRC had a lengthy discussion about private streets in the R5 Zoning District. Specifically, the discussion focused on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to remove the requirement that R5 communities must be age-restricted communities to qualify for private streets. Commissioner Unger said none of the committee members had opposition to the proposal; however, the biggest fear is that the County may have to someday take the streets over if something happens and the residents of the subdivision would not have enough money to take care of the streets themselves. ------------- City of Winchester Planning Commission City Planning Commissioner, Stephen Slaughter, Jr., reported there were some amendments to the zoning ordinance at the City’s last meeting: the first dealt with floodplain regulations and the other dealt with alternative financial institutions. Commissioner Slaughter said there was also a discussion about relocating a portion of Indian Alley for the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum. He said the next meeting of the City’s Planning Commission will have four public hearings; there will also be a work session discussion on corridor enhancement districts and the Comprehensive Plan, and how that fits with the new John Kerr Elementary School. ------------- 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 Commission. Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, came forward to speak regarding a discussion item on the Commission’s agenda, the discussion of potential revisions to the landscaping requirements pursuant to the Business-Friendly Committee. Mr. Goode said he was the subcommittee chairman of the Land Use Committee, or what is now commonly referred to as the Business-Friendly Committee. He commented this committee had comments to the Board of Supervisors on a number of different subjects and the landscape ordinance was only one item among those comments. Mr. Goode said when the meetings initially started, several committee members expressed reservations about the work that was to be conducted, noting that recommendations would more than likely not be done. Mr. Goode told those individuals he thought they were wrong because he believed the Board members were seriously interested in what the businesses community had to say. Mr. Goode said he happened to notice the Planning Commission agenda last week and he saw the landscape ordinance was on the agenda. Mr. Goode said after reading through the agenda, he believed the only recommendation for change on the docket was probably the least important item the committee had recommended. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3077 Minutes of April 2, 2014 Mr. Goode said he was provided a copy of the minutes from the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) meeting and he could tell from the minutes that the DRRC had not received all of the committee recommendations. Mr. Goode said he would like to attend a meeting of the DRRC, bring all of the recommendations, and make a presentation to put things into context. He thought this would be beneficial and reflect what the Business-Friendly Committee actually thought. Mr. Goode said he appreciated the proposed modification presented at this evening’s meeting, which would make an exception for the master development plan (MDP), if a full-blown site plan is presented. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #02-14 of Jessica M. Neff for a kennel at 461 Laurel Grove Road. This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 73-9-3 and is located in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran reported that kennels are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Cheran said the proposed use will take place on a 7+ acre parcel, surrounded by properties zoned RA. He said the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies this area of the County to remain rural in nature and is not a part of any land use study. Mr. Cheran stated there will be no employees with this proposed kennel per the Frederick County Health Department. He noted the nearest residential dwelling is approximately 600 feet from the proposed dog kennel; therefore, the Category C Buffer can be met, as 400 feet is required for a no-screen Category C Buffer. Mr. Cheran reported the applicant will be constructing a 30 X 20 square-foot enclosed kennel with a fenced area at the rear of the property. The applicant has indicated that no more than 28 dogs will be on the property at any given time. He pointed out that all dogs must be confined indoors with the exception of when they are exercised and will not be let outdoors prior to 8:00 am. He added the dogs must be indoors by 9:00 p.m. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate. Ms. Jessica M. Neff, the applicant, came forward and stated she is proposing to operate a dog-boarding kennel; no breeding will take place at the kennel. Ms. Neff said all the dogs will be inside at all times, except when exercising, approximately four-to-six times per day. Commissioner Unger inquired about the construction of the kennel building. Ms. Neff said the structure will basically be a free-standing garage with wider-than-normal walls to provide noise insulation; the walls and attic will be insulated for better heating and air conditioning. Chairman Wilmot called for any citizen in the audience who wished to speak regarding this CUP. The following persons came forward to speak: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3078 Minutes of April 2, 2014 Mrs. Shelia Pinner, a resident at 408 Laurel Grove Road, came forward to speak in opposition to the proposed kennel. She said her home would face the proposed kennel and she wanted to speak about the possible devaluation of her property. Mrs. Pinner said she has been researching this matter and has read that properties can devalue from 15-20%, if located next to a kennel. She wanted to know how her property would be protected from being devalued. Mrs. Pinner said her family has been at this location for 42 years; she said they built on family property and most of her neighbors are local families. She stated both she and her husband are retired and they were hoping to enjoy their retirement in the serenity and peacefulness of the County’s rural area, not next to a business. Mrs. Pinner believed there was no need for the proposed kennel; she said this service is provided throughout Frederick County and other facilities are available. Mrs. Pinner did not understand why she should be subjected to this. She also wanted to know if a noise study had been done; how dog waste would be disposed; how odor will be controlled; and she asked if water runoff will be affected. Dr. Scott Berman, a resident at 247 Laurel Grove Road, came forward and stated he shared the same concerns as Mrs. Pinner. Dr. Berman said he wanted to see for himself an operation similar to the kennel proposed and he found one in Warren County, Cavalier Kennel. He said it was explained to him that Cavalier Kennel was built with triple drywall, sound-dampening walls, and two-by- six construction. Dr. Berman said he started talking with surrounding neighbors, some a mile away, who said they were not initially opposed to the kennel, based on what they heard about the building construction, but they are now very unhappy about their property values. Dr. Berman said he lives across a field from the Neffs and they have been great neighbors and this is a great neighborhood. He said there is open space between the Neff’s house and his; however, he can hear a single dog in that area now; he couldn’t imagine the noise from 20 dogs. Dr. Berman stated this was not a practical location; he said there are better places for this, preferably a non-residential area. He commented this is a residential, quiet area and he spent a lot of money for his home and improvements. He added this kennel will not be a good thing for the community. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman Wilmot next emphasized that the conditions of the CUP must be adhered to at all times. She said if the neighbors find there is a dilemma, it is the neighbors’ right to come to the Planning Department with those concerns. She said if the CUP is not being operated properly, or if there is too much dog noise, the permit can be revoked. Mr. Cheran returned to the podium to reiterate some of the recommended conditions that were aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the neighbors. Chairman Wilmot inquired of the County Attorney, Rod Williams, if he could provide any information on the valuation and assessment aspect of the discussion. Mr. Williams replied that valuation and assessment is a subjective study that is done by the Commissioner of Revenues Office based on data they have available to them. He was not aware of any hard and fast rules that dictate a value when a property is located next to a kennel. Commissioner Thomas advised the applicant that there were a number of different construction techniques for sound abatement in a building. He said a building could be constructed in such a way that there could be 50 dogs inside barking and no one outside would hear it. He said there is a benefit/cost ratio standpoint to be considered and the applicant has to decide where she wants to be. Commissioner Thomas cautioned, however, that when the dogs are outside, they are going to bark and Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3079 Minutes of April 2, 2014 there’s no way to muzzle them outside. He encouraged the applicant to be mindful of what the Chairman advised regarding the conditions of the permit. Commissioner Unger said he was also concerned about the noise of this operation. He said he visited the SPCA and stood outside in the parking lot to determine how bad the noise was. He said he heard no barking at all and he assumed at least some dogs were barking during the time he was there. Commissioner Unger didn’t feel there would be a problem with an enclosed building. Commissioner Kenney said he was familiar with the location and the surrounding area. He said this is agricultural land buffered by cornfields and large stands of trees. Commissioner Kenney agreed there were things that could be done to soundproof the building. Commissioner Oates mentioned the adjoining State Agricultural Research Center. He said this location is out within the County. He stated in the springtime, there is spraying taking place, tractors are running, and other animals are raised that could be noisier than dogs. Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #02-14 of Jessica M. Neff for a kennel for dog boarding with the conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kenney and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #02-14 of Jessica M. Neff for a dog-boarding kennel at 461 Laurel Grove Road with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than 28 dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time. 3. This conditional use permit (CUP) is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property. 4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed. 5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming free or barking. 6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m. 7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square-feet in size and five feet in height. 8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require approval of a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3080 Minutes of April 2, 2014 An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VII, Overlay Districts, Part 702, (FP) Floodplain Districts. The proposed revisions will bring Part 702, Floodplain Districts, in compliance with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Virginia Model Floodplain Management Ordinance. Action – Recommended Adoption Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has prepared revisions to Part 702 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Districts. She noted this portion of the zoning ordinance lays out the various floodplain districts and the uses and disturbance permitted within the various districts. Ms. Perkins said the current floodplain ordinance was revised in 2009 as directed by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). She stated the DCR has since modified the floodplain ordinance and, therefore, revisions to Frederick County’s Floodplain Overlay District are now once again necessary in order to meet the minimum regulatory standards required in a fully compliant floodplain ordinance. Ms. Perkins said the primary revisions to the Floodplain Ordinance are: new text regarding designation and duties of the Floodplain Administrator; new sections for “Jurisdictional Boundary Changes” and “Submitting Technical Data;” relocation and revisions to the “Description of Special Flood Hazard Districts” sections; revised “Factors to be Considered in Granting Variances;” revised “Elevation and Construction Standards;” and new and revised definitions. Ms. Perkins stated the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) reviewed and endorsed the revisions at their meeting on January 23, 2014. Discussions were held by the Planning Commission on March 5, 2014 and by the Board of Supervisors on March 12, 2014. She said the Board had no changes and directed the item be scheduled for public hearing. Commissioner Oates remarked that if Frederick County does not adopt these revisions, the citizens of Frederick County will not be able to participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Program. Ms. Perkins replied that if the County does not have a fully compliant floodplain ordinance, FEMA will not offer flood insurance in our locality. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding these revisions and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Dody Stottlemyer, a resident of the Shawnee District, said she was concerned about some of the language relating to the addition of the Floodplain Management Administrator. In addition, Ms. Stottlemyer said she visited the DCR website and it states on the model floodplain management ordinance that, “…the provisions cannot be copied verbatim and every municipality making use of the provisions will have to make some choices and modifications, depending on the kind of flood hazard districts and information contained in its flood insurance study and the community’s own particular circumstances and objectives or policy.” She said she read the model ordinance and it is almost verbatim with what is being proposed by Frederick County. Commissioner Oates responded to Ms. Stottlemyer’s inquiry by noting it was decided to simply make the minimum amount of revisions and not to add or embellish the flood plain ordinance. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3081 Minutes of April 2, 2014 No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Perkins returned to the podium and commented that the State model ordinance is a very large document and in its entirety, applies to all different localities, such as areas with coastal issues, that wouldn’t apply to our locality. She said there are also modifications to the text which are needed to insert your particular jurisdiction name. Therefore, the model ordinance cannot be adopted as is; modifications to fit the individual jurisdiction must be made. She added that the revisions done in 2009 were done the same way. Commissioner Oates next made a motion to recommend adoption of the revisions to Part 702 of the Floodplain Districts. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VII, Overlay Districts, Part 702, (FP) Floodplain Districts. The proposed revisions will bring Part 702, Floodplain Districts, in compliance with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Virginia Model Floodplain Management Ordinance. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) ------------- INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS Discussion on Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Master Development Plan Requirements, Part 801, per the Business-Friendly Recommendations Committee. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that back in October of 2012, the Board of Supervisors formed the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Committee (also called the Business-Friendly Committee) to evaluate the current processes and procedures being utilized by the County. She said the purpose of the effort was to search for ways the County could meet the needs of new and existing businesses in the community. Ms. Perkins stated the committee’s final report was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2013. One recommendation contained in the report was to eliminate the master development plan (MDP) requirement contained in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Perkins said the Land Use and Development Subcommittee of the Business-Friendly Committee “recommended the elimination of the MDP process. They felt this process was already incorporated in other existing ordinances and results in a duplicative process.” Ms. Perkins stated the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) reviewed the MDP requirements at their October 2013 and January 2014 meetings. She said the DRRC disagreed that the MDP requirement should be eliminated. The DRRC believed it was an important process for both the applicant and the public. She said the DRRC did recommend the MDP ordinance be modified to allow for a waiver of the MDP requirement, if the applicant chooses to process a detailed site Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3082 Minutes of April 2, 2014 plan in lieu of a MDP. Ms. Perkins said the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on this effort. Commissioner Oates, a member of the DRRC, said he was against removing the MDP requirement because in his surveying business, he believed it protected his clients to have an approved MDP, especially on larger developments, because it guarantees where roads, entrances, buffers, etc. will be located on the site. He said his clients are protected from changes that may occur in the future. Commissioner Thomas said the proposed revisions give the client the option to decide if they want to request a waiver of the MDP; if they don’t want to request the waiver, they don’t have to. He believed it was a good compromise. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Commission’s comments to the Board. ------------- Discussion on Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Buffers and Landscaping Requirements, Part 203, per the Business-Friendly Recommendations Committee. Action – Referred Back to DRRC Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that another recommendation that came out of the Business-Friendly Committee was for a “…complete review and re-evaluation of the buffer and landscaping requirements to provide a well-defined purpose to allow for flexibility in project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers.” Ms. Perkins said the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) reviewed the landscaping ordinance at their September 2013, January 2014, and February 2014 meetings and considered all of the recommendations provided by the Business-Friendly Committee. She said the DRRC recognized, however, that the buffer and landscaping sections had recently been reviewed and the committee believed the existing ordinance was appropriate. Those reviews occurred back in 2013, when the Board of Supervisors adopted a substantial overhaul to the landscaping requirements as part of the RP (Residential Performance) District update; a few years ago, the Board modified the buffer requirements which substantially reduced the requirements for buffers; and, in addition, the RA (Rural Areas) landscaping lot requirements were removed a number of years ago as well. Considering all of the recommendations and the revisions that were recently approved, the DRRC believed the existing ordinance to be adequate and appropriate. Ms. Perkins said the DRRC did recommend the parking lot landscaping requirements be moved out of the parking lot section and into the main landscaping section to insure all the requirements were within one section. Commissioner Oates stated that of all the localities he works in, as far as doing landscaping, Frederick County is by far the simplest and easiest one to work in. He said one additional step that could be taken to save money on site development would be to specify places on site where pavement, curbing, and concrete could be reduced, which could significantly drop the cost of site development. Commissioner Oates said he didn’t have a problem, however, if the Commission wanted to send this back to DRRC and let Mr. Goode make a presentation to possibly sway the recommendations of the DRRC. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3083 Minutes of April 2, 2014 Commissioner Thomas believed it would be appropriate to make certain the DRRC understood what the Business-Friendly Committee was trying to get across and allow Mr. Goode to give a presentation on their recommendations. Commissioner Oates said he was emphatically opposed to the recommendation that a tree committee be formed to review site plans because he believed it would stall the process. He said he was not in favor of forming another committee. Chairman Wilmot asked the Planning Director, Eric Lawrence, if this discussion would come back to the Planning Commission again, after a presentation is made to the DRRC. Mr. Lawrence said it was up to the Commission to decide if they wanted to send the landscaping requirements back to committee and it certainly would come back to the Commission to update members as to the reaction of the DRRC. He said, ultimately, a recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, whether it is now or in another month or so. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to send the landscaping requirements discussion back to the DRRC and allow the Business-Friendly Committee to make a presentation and then afterward, have it come back to the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and was passed by a majority vote, as follows: YES (send back to DRRC): Mohn, Dunlap, Triplett, Molden, Thomas, Oates, Manuel, Ambrogi, Wilmot NO: Kenney, Marston, Unger ABSENT: Crockett ------------- Discussion of a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Frederick County UDA Centers and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is a follow-up to and in support of the UDA Center Design Cabinet Report and the draft Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) Ordinance discussion. The proposed amendment continues to consolidate and reinforce the UDA Center discussion within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further strengthens sound planning principles within the County’s urban areas. The aim of this proposed amendment is to illustrate why UDA Centers in Frederick County are important and to highlight who would benefit from living in these strategic growth areas. The proposed amendment would be inserted in the Plan with Chapter I, Urban Areas. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the proposed amendment was initiated by the CPPC (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee) and is the result of the ongoing discussion of the Urban Center Design Cabinet report and the TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) Zoning Ordinance which was discussed at various work sessions and most recently, at the Planning Commission Retreat. Mr. Ruddy said the CPPC discussed this proposed amendment at their March 10, 2014 meeting and expressed their support, along with the overall UDA Center and TND effort. Mr. Ruddy explained the aim of the proposed amendment is to illustrate why UDA Centers in Frederick County are important and to highlight who would benefit from living in these Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3084 Minutes of April 2, 2014 strategic growth areas. He said questions were asked during the work session about the density, intensity, and marketability of this type of development. There was also a belief the County should further qualify why this was important to Frederick County. Mr. Ruddy said the general consensus is that this amendment consolidates and reinforces the UDA Center discussion within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further strengthens sound planning principles within Frederick County’s urban areas. Mr. Ruddy addressed the question of why the County has UDA Centers. Mr. Ruddy stated the UDA centers are an integral part of Frederick County’s overall growth management strategy. He explained the UDA centers are located at very important locations within the County’s Urban Areas and are strategic growth areas which will absorb a greater amount of the anticipated community growth in an efficient and effective way, providing relief and protection for the County’s Rural Areas, and encouraging a variety of housing choices within the urban areas. Mr. Ruddy next addressed the question of who would benefit from living in these strategic growth areas. Mr. Ruddy stated the County’s planning efforts enable residents, both current and future, recent graduates, and recent retirees, to choose from an array of housing types that suit their needs and provide affordable housing opportunities. He said the implementation of this effort will ensure that the needs of all residents are met. Mr. Ruddy said the amendment itself, entitled Frederick County UDA Centers, contains several policies and a variety of ways to implement them. He said the primary policy states, “As Frederick County continues to grow, it is essential that the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Areas meets expected growth in a sustainable manner. Growth should primarily be focused within the Urban Areas.” In addition, “More intensive development should be focused in UDA Centers, particularly meeting the residential needs of the young adults, the retirement generation, and the workforce needed for business development.” Furthermore, “UDA Centers, located at strategic locations within the urban areas, should absorb a portion of the anticipated community growth with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness.” Mr. Ruddy said this is a discussion item for the Planning Commission and the staff is seeking input from the Commission to forward on to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Kenney commended the staff for their efforts and tenacity on this important project. Chairman Wilmot said during the retreat, one issue raised by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors during this topic of discussion was, “for whom are we doing this.” Chairman Wilmot wanted to make sure his question was answered by the iteration presented this evening. Mr. Ruddy believed it did answer the Chairman’s question. He said the issue is currently within the Comprehensive Plan, but in a variety of places. He said this reiteration re-enforces, it recognizes, and states several times who this is aimed towards. Mr. Ruddy said this is aimed at existing residents, both young adults and the retirement generation, and as the County continues to grow, more of those people are going to be Frederick County residents and this is aimed at opportunities available for those residents. He said it meets both the needs of the residential community and the workforce housing. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3085 Minutes of April 2, 2014 Commissioner Thomas believed this reiteration answered that particular question for him; however, he thought it depended on how specific an answer someone was seeking. Commissioner Oates thought the policies would promote keeping young adults within the local community versus young graduates leaving the area for amenities in larger cities. Chairman Wilmot added the intention is to provide young adults with a variety of housing types and jobs. Mr. Ruddy said he would forward the Commission’s comments on to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. ------------- OTHER DIM-OC (Development Impact Model Oversight Committee) Report Planning Department Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) has concluded their study of re-evaluating the DIM (Development Impact Model), along with considering a business-friendly initiative. Mr. Lawrence said the DIM-OC is a committee of the Board of Supervisors and he wanted to provide the Planning Commission with an update of their study and its conclusions. Mr. Lawrence said the DIM -OC was tasked with re-evaluating the DIM taking into account current economic conditions, specifically the capital projects within the model, and consideration of credits that could be used to offset the capital impacts. The committee learned that residential building permits were up 30% over the previous year, reflecting an improvement in the economy. It was also noted that only 7.2% of the County’s budget on average over the past ten years was actual capital. Mr. Lawrence said the committee confirmed that all the local tax rates are properly installed within the model; they also clarified that the DIM output used for rezoning evaluation is solely capital expense and does not include any credit for revenue nor does it include debt service. Mr. Lawrence said the model was run for the committee, which looks at all the revenue and all the capital impacts. In particular, the model provides the fiscal impacts on the County over a 20- year period for a single-family home and it was determined that the expenses of a single-family home generate about $133,511 in service demands, but the revenues coming out of that same house are about $73,924. Mr. Lawrence said the importance of those numbers is that there is a shortfall. He said the cash proffer expectation is currently $19,600 per single-family dwelling. When other jurisdictions were considered, it was learned that impacts in other jurisdictions ranged from $15,000 to over $50,000. He said Frederick County’s impacts were on the lower end of that range and reflects that Frederick County’s model is working properly. Mr. Lawrence stated the DIM-OC also considered cash proffer payments and learned that through the DIM/rezoning application, cash proffers have exceeded $9.4 million since 1995. In FY2013, the County received $1,185,263 in cash contributions. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3086 Minutes of April 2, 2014 In addition, he said the DIM-OC had an opportunity to have a “question and answer” session with Mr. Carson Bise, the author of the DIM used by Frederick County, which was created back in 2005. One of the things learned was that Frederick County’s model is designed as a direct impact model, not an indirect impact model, which means it is designed to examine the impacts on Frederick County’s budget, but it doesn’t look at all the outside affects or indirect costs (going to a retail store or restaurant which are indirect costs); it only looks at the costs an individual pays directly to the County (real estate tax, personal property tax). One of the questions posed to Mr. Bise was whether the model still functioned as it was designed to and Mr. Bise offered to go back into the model and see if it was still functioning properly. Mr. Bise reported back that he had the opportunity to dissect the County’s model and his findings were that the calculations, the functions and formulas, and the links, were all continuing to work properly. Mr. Bise had reported that the figures that needed to be updated, such as tax rates and budgetary figures, all had been updated. He said the model is still accurate and works as designed. Mr. Lawrence said the DIMOC also discussed potential revenue credits for inclusion in proffer expectation calculations; this was something that came from the Business-Friendly Committee. He noted the DIM for proffer expectation only looks at capital, so the group decided to look at providing revenue credits. They looked at three different possible scenarios: revenue credits from new residential growth; revenue credits for commercial/residential mixed-use projects; and credits for transportation proffers above what a TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis) is recommending. Mr. Lawrence said the DIM -OC made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to enable a credit when proffered transportation improvements exceed TIA identified improvements. The Board of Supervisors approved this recommendation in January of 2014. Mr. Lawrence stated the DIM-OC concluded there were no glaring inequities with the DIM to date. The DIM-OC also concluded that no additional revisions to the DIM and the process of calculating the proffer expectation were warranted. The DIMOC’s recommendation was to keep the model as is and they concluded their study. Mr. Lawrence said he wanted to provide this opportunity to share this information with the Planning Commission, although some members of the Commission were on the committee. Mr. Lawrence said the DIM -OC completed their study and will not have any further meetings. He noted the committee will re-convene again in May or June of next year. ------------- OTHER CANCELATION OF THE APRIL 16, 2014 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission’s April 16, 2014 meeting. Commissioner Oates made a motion to cancel the April 16, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. -------------