The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 02-20-13 Meeting Agenda AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia February 20, 2013 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) December 5, 2012 Minutes and January 2, 2013 Minutes ............................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #01-13 for Judy Tingle, for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #09-10 enabling an In-home Family Day Care Facility. This request is for the purpose of increasing the number of children being cared for at any given time. The property is located at 284 Tyler Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 32A-2-18 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Johnston .................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District – Removal of waiver opportunity in the RA District which allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce setbacks for existing lots. Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VIII Development Plans and Approvals, Section 801 Master Development Plans – Revisions to update the MDP submission and processing requirements. This revision also modifies a number of MDP references throughout Chapter 165 to conform with the Section 801 revision. Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (D) PUBLIC MEETING 8) Rezoning #09-12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The property is located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81, and is identified by Property Identification Number 33-A-125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (E) 9) Rezoning #01-13 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #08-06. This revision relates to the “Transportation” section of the proffers. The property is located on the east side of Route 11 and 3,000+/- feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672), also known as Exit 321of Interstate 81, and is identified by Property Identification Number 33-A-124A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (F) 10) Subdivision #06-12 and Waiver Request of 300N, LLC, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to create two lots, and waiver of Subdivision of Land, Section 144-24, Lot Requirements, (C) Lot Access. The property is located on the east side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) at 186 Wincrest Drive, and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-1-A1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran ........................................................................................................................ (E) 11) Other 12) Adjourn Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2915 Minutes of December 5, 2012 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 5, 2012. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/ Member at Large; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin McKannan, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison; and Roderick B. Williams, Frederick County Attorney. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; and Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee’ S. Arlotta, Clerk. ----------- CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. ------------- MINUTES Commissioner Oates made a motion to adopt the minutes of October 17, 2012 as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crocket and unanimously approved. Commissioner Oates made a motion to adopt the minutes of November 7, 2012 as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crocket and unanimously approved. -------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2916 Minutes of December 5, 2012 COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission (EDC) – 11/09/12 Meeting Commissioner Madagan reported that the primary order of business was the staff’s annual update on the competitiveness of the area; in particular, attracting new business in relation to other surrounding areas. He said the staff provided data on several categories including housing, labor, utilities, land, and showed a comparison between those categories in our area and surrounding areas. Commissioner Madagan said there was not a significant change from last year to this year. He said the Winchester/ Frederick County area remains lower than Northern Virginia, obviously, but higher in certain categories than areas further south in the Valley. He said the other item of business was the 30th anniversary celebration, which will occur this Friday. He said the staff provided updates on the celebration planning. ------------- Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 11/19/12 Meeting Commissioner Oates reported the CPPC had two items of discussion. The first item was the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), which was reviewed with representatives from the School Board, the Department of Public Services, and the Department of Parks & Recreation. He said the second item was the discussion of land use adjacent to the Lord Fairfax Community College, which will be an ongoing topic into the next year. ------------- Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) – 11/20/12 Meeting Commissioner Oates reported the HRAB discussed a cell tower on Fairview Road at the western limits of the County. He said the HRAB believed the applicant presented an excellent package for review, which should be a template for cell tower applications in the future. He said the HRAB forwarded a recommendation of approval for the tower. Commissioner Oates stated that the HRAB’s Chairman, Ms. Rhoda Kriz, announced her retirement from the board after serving many years. ------------- Transportation Committee – 12/03/12 Meeting Commissioner Oates reported the Transportation Committee discussed the Route 277 Project. He said there was discussion about the schools, business entrances, and road design. In addition, the committee reviewed the existing plan for the realignment of Aylor Road and two alternatives prepared by VDOT at the request of impacted land owners. Commissioner Oates said the committee believed the original proposed alignment was still the best choice. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2917 Minutes of December 5, 2012 Winchester City Planning Commission City Planning Commissioner, Kevin McKannan, reported the Winchester City Planning Commission is considering several mixed use projects and there have been several public hearings over the previous two months. Commissioner McKannan said one project in particular the Commission is working on is an ordinance to conditionally rezone 7.74 acres of property relatively close to Frederick County and located in the western portion of the City, off Cedar Creek, across from Harvest Ridge and adjacent to Orchard Hills. Mr. McKannan said the City Planning Commission is also working on various administrative approvals on various projects, such as City National Bank, Merchant Tire & Auto, and a Chucky Cheese. ------------- Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Work Session – 11/14/12 Meeting Chairman Wilmot reported on a work session between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to discuss changes to the RP (Residential Performance) Ordinance. Chairman Wilmot reported a considerable amount of good work going into this topic and work continues. ------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. -------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #08-12 of Eastgate Commercial, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #02-07 and relating to the transportation section of the proffers. The properties are located west of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South) at the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Maranto Manor Drive, on the south side of Maranto Manor Drive. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 76-A-53J, 76-A-53K, 76-A-53L, 76-A-53M, and 76-A- 53N in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action – Recommended Approval Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this application is a minor proffer revision to allow left-turn access into Parcels 3A and 3B from Maranto Manor Drive. Mr. Ruddy stated this access was previously proffered out. In addition, he said the proffers construct the access point and clarify the limited access to the parcels on the north side of Maranto Manor Drive in this location. Mr. Ruddy noted this modification has been modeled and VDOT and the Planning Staff are satisfied that it will function properly as proposed, although VDOT does note continued reservations in their comments. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2918 Minutes of December 5, 2012 Mr. Ruddy explained the access to the general area is from Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522S). He said what is being proposed very simply is to allow a right-in, right-out entering Maranto Manor Drive from Route 522 North and a left turn from Route 522 into the site from the south. To insure the project is consistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) previously done, there are several commitments from the applicants. Those commitments include: 1) no additional gas station provided on Parcel 2 or 3B; and, 2) no truck traffic or truck trailers to access the parcels. Mr. Ruddy believed this should keep the traffic consistent with what was originally approved with the 2007 Rezoning. Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was representing the applicant. Mr. Mislowsky stated that a full TIA was submitted for VDOT so they could evaluate the levels of service at this entrance and the effects on Route 522. He said VDOT approved the TIA, along with the revised version of the proffers. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this application to please come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the public meeting. Commissioner Manuel stated this was simply a minor revision and he believed it was good planning. In addition, Commissioner Manuel commented this minor revision was VDOT approved and the Planning Staff concurs with VDOT’s approval. Commissioner Manuel next made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application #08-12 of Eastgate Commercial. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #08-12 of Eastgate Commercial, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #02-07 and relating to the transportation section of the proffers. The properties are located west of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South) at the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Maranto Manor Drive, on the south side of Maranto Manor Drive. (Note: Commissioners Lemieux and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) ------------- Master Development Plan #06-12 of Snowden Bridge, submitted by Greenway Engineering, containing a mix of single-family, townhouse, and multi-family residential units for a total of 1,234 residential dwelling units. This Master Development Plan (MDP) contains the majority of Landbay III of the Snowden Bridge development and contains both a revision for a portion of Landbay III, originally approved in 2008 and administratively revised in 2011, as well as additional acreage located in Landbay III. The properties are located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), and east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 44-A-31B, 44-A-292A, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this Master Development Plan (MDP) is to develop 285.40 acres of land zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with a total of 1,234 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2919 Minutes of December 5, 2012 residential dwelling units. Ms. Perkins said the development consists of a mix of single-family, townhouse, and multi-family residential units. She explained this MDP contains the majority of Landbay III of the Snowden Bridge development; it contains both a revision for a portion of Landbay III that was originally approved in 2008 and administratively revised in 2011, as well as additional acreage located in Landbay III. Ms. Perkins said the MDP for Snowden Bridge is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance, and the proffers for Rezoning #06-03. She stated that this MDP is presented to the Planning Commission this evening as an informational item only. Commissioner Oates commented that it appeared this phase of development reaches 1,234 residential units and the applicant is at the threshold where they will have to complete Snowden Bridge Boulevard out to Route 11. Commissioner Oates also commented that the applicant is nearing the threshold of the commercial aspect of this development as well. Ms. Perkins stated that what is before the Commission does not trigger those proffers at this time. Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., introduced himself and Mr. Evan A. Wyatt from Greenway Engineering, Inc., as the representatives for Brookfield-Stephenson Village. Mr. Lawson stated this MDP is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and completes and plans the remainder of the property owned by Brookfield Stephenson Village, LLC. Mr. Lawson commented that the community center and the other recent improvements have sparked interest and, as a result, the applicant is moving forward with planning and is looking forward optimistically to the future. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Lawson if this was the final MDP for this development. Mr. Lawson recalled that the property was divided a couple years ago; he said this is the final MDP for the portion owned by Brookfield Stephenson Village. Chairman Wilmot asked if any member of the public would like to comment on this MDP. No one came forward to speak. No comments made were made by any of the Commission members and no issues were raised. No action was required by the Planning Commission and the Staff noted they would forward the MDP on to the Board of Supervisors. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) ------------- COMMISSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF THE 2013-2014 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that on November 19, the CPPC (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee) Executive Committee reviewed this year’s CIP (Capital Improvements Plan) and had recommended that it was in conformance with the County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruddy noted the purpose behind the CIP is to appropriately plan public facilities and make certain the projects are consistent with the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2920 Minutes of December 5, 2012 Comprehensive Plan. It also ensures that capital needs associated with future rezoning projects are appropriately accounted for. Mr. Ruddy stated the 2013-2014 CIP contains 86 projects, which is slightly less than last year’s CIP. Several projects were moved off the CIP because they have either been funded or completed and in addition, some re-organization has streamlined the CIP. Mr. Ruddy introduced some of the representatives of the various departments and agencies with projects on the CIP: Mr. Mathew Hott, with the Department of Parks & Recreation; Mr. Wayne Lee, with Frederick County Public Schools; and Ms. Gloria Puffinberger, with the Department of Public Services. Mr. Ruddy reviewed those projects that have moved forward or have been completed. He described a few of the new and/or modified projects: the Indian Hollow Elementary School renovations; the Parks & Recreation’s Aquatic Center and the Abrams Creek Greenway Trail; and regarding transportation, the Route 277 improvements on Fairfax Pike is a new project. In addition to the various projects listed on the table and project descriptions and projected costs from the various departments and agencies, Mr. Ruddy pointed out the four maps which are a part of the CIP. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments or comments from any of the representatives of the departments and agencies. No one came forward to speak. Commissioner Oates stated that the CPPC Executive Committee thoroughly reviewed and discussed all of the projects on the CIP. Commissioner Oates thanked Mr. Ruddy for his swift response following up on questions and issues from the committee. Commissioner Oates believed the CIP was in good shape and felt it should be forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors. ------------- Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, Planned Development Districts, Section 502, R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District. This proposed revision will allow private streets in the R5 District for all types of developments by removing the age restricted requirement. No Action Required Commissioner Mohn said he would abstain from all discussion of this proposed ordinance amendment, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Candice E Perkins, reported that staff had received a request to allow the use of private streets for all types of developments in the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said currently, the use of private streets in the R5 District is only permitted within age-restricted communities and only if approved by the Board of Supervisors. She explained that the age-restricted private street allowance was added into the R5 Zoning District in 2000, along with a number of other revisions. She said that prior to the adoption of the age-restricted private street allowance, the use of public streets was mandatory for all new developments in the R5 District. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2921 Minutes of December 5, 2012 Ms. Perkins noted that this amendment proposes to allow the use of private streets within all developments in the R5 District, but would still require Board of Supervisors’ approval. She also noted that this text amendment has the potential to modify communities previously approved as age- restricted and could introduce dwelling units that accommodate all ages. As a result, the impacts on the County’s school system should be considered with this amendment. Ms. Perkins stated that in addition to the expansion of the use of private streets, also included within the amendment is text stating that VDOT pavement sections must be adhered to as well as all accessory features; requirements stating the roads will not be accepted by the County or VDOT, which needs to be written within all subdivision plans, plats, and sales material; requirements for the developer to establish a reserve fund; and requirements that the developer have an engineer certify the construction of the private roads. Ms. Perkins stated that this proposed amendment was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their October 2012 meeting and the DRRC had minor changes to the proposed text. She said the changes were emailed to the DRRC and they endorsed the revised text and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Ms. Perkins stated this item is presented to the Commission for discussion and all comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this proposed ordinance amendment; however, no one came forward to speak. The Planning Commission believed there had been sufficient review and discussion of this item at the committee level. They believed it was in good form and had no issues or questions at this point. Ms. Perkins stated that she would forward the amendment on to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning Commission’s endorsement. ------------- Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Section 801, Master Development Plans. This proposed revision will update the master development plan (MDP) submission and processing requirements and will also modify a number of MDP references throughout Chapter 165 to conform to the Section 801 revision. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this proposed amendment will update the MDP (Master Development Plan) review and submission requirements. Ms. Perkins noted that currently, the county does not process MDPs as outlined in Part 801 of the zoning ordinance; specifically, the ordinance requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and subsequently, the Board is required to approve or deny the MDP. Ms. Perkins state that since MDPs only demonstrate compliance with County Code, they’re not actually scheduled for review at a public meeting until they have met all County requirements and have addressed all review agency comments. Therefore, MDPs, as currently processed, are informational items and are only presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for information. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2922 Minutes of December 5, 2012 Ms. Perkins stated that staff has drafted a number of changes to Part 801 to update the MDP requirements to revise how MDPs are processed and reorganized the text for clarity. She noted that this item was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their October meeting and staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission to send to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Mohn believed the changes were good and were long overdue. Other Commission members agreed. No questions or issues were raised and Ms. Perkins said she would forward the item to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. ------------- Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 122, Nuisances. This proposed revision will address the cutting of tall grass and weeds in the commercial districts. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the Planning Staff has been requested to draft a revision to Chapter 122-Nuisances to address the cutting of tall grass and weeds in commercial and industrial zoning districts. She said currently, the ordinance only pertains to residential zoning districts. Ms. Perkins said also included are revisions to the notice requirements and the addition of lien text. Ms. Perkins said this item was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) in October. She said the original version included all commercial and industrial zoning districts; however, the DRRC recommended the proposal be limited to only the B1 and B2 Districts. She said the amendment was revised accordingly and is presented to the Commission with those revisions. Ms. Perkins said the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Oates commented that he attended a meeting last week with DCR (Department of Conservation & Recreation) and they are working on the new storm water regulations which will come into effect in 2014. Commissioner Oates said in 2014, the State is going to consider, basically, a mowed lawn as an impervious area which needs to be treated. He said the DCR is encouraging natural growth in all commercial and industrial areas to offset storm water impacts. Commissioner Oates suggested that the Commission may be going in the wrong direction with this proposed ordinance amendment at this time, especially in light of the comments from the DCR. Ms. Perkins mentioned the many citizen complaints received over the years concerning tall grass, which is why this proposed amendment is being brought forward. Commissioner Mohn pointed out a distinction between areas intentionally left alone to satisfy water quality issues and which is purposely planted with indigenous plants, versus those areas and yards that just get unintentionally overgrown, especially in neighborhoods. Commissioner Mohn said the issues will create some interesting discussions. Ms. Perkins stated that she would forward the Planning Commission’s comments to the Board of Supervisors. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2923 Minutes of December 5, 2012 ------------- Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District. This proposed revision will remove a waiver opportunity in the RA District which allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce setbacks for existing lots. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a minor revision in the RA (Rural Areas) District. Ms. Perkins said the Planning Staff has been asked to remove a waiver opportunity contained in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District which allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce the setbacks for an existing lot of record, if an undue hardship exists. She said this waiver should be eliminated because requests of this type should be handled by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Perkins stated this proposed amendment was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their October 2012 meeting. She said the DRRC endorsed the proposed revision as drafted and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. No questions or issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. No one in the audience wished to speak. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the proposed amendment on to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. ------------- OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2012 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission’s December 19, 2012 meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel their December 19, 2012 meeting. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates and second by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ June M. Wilmot, Chairman _______________________________________ Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2924 Minutes of January 2, 2013 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 January 2, 2013. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, 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; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud 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 & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to adopt the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. ------------- ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS AND RULES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2013 The Secretary to the Planning Commission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, presided over the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2013. Election of June M. Wilmot, Chairman for 2013 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2013 calendar year. The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2925 Minutes of January 2, 2013 A motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2013. ------------- Election of Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2013 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chairman for the 2013 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Triplett. Motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2013. ----------- Election of Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary for 2013 Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission. The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas. Motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2013. ----------- MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2013 Planning Commission and Committees Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas, and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2926 Minutes of January 2, 2013 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors’ meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building. In addition, if inclement weather prohibits the Wednesday evening meeting, the Commission shall move the meeting to Thursday evening, which is the day after the regularly-scheduled Wednesday meeting. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission has voted unanimously for their Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee to meet the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and for the Development Review and Regulations Committee to meet on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room. ------------- Committee Assignments for 2013 Regarding committee assignments for the calendar year of 2013, Chairman Wilmot asked the Planning Commission members to remain in their current committee assignments until she had the opportunity to communicate with everyone individually and determine if everyone is satisfied with their particular role. Chairman Wilmot next announced the following liaisons: Transportation Committee, Commissioner Oates; Historic Resources Advisory Board, Commissioner Oates; Economic Development Commission, Commissioner Madagan; Sanitation Authority, Commissioner Unger; Conservation Easement Authority, Commissioner Triplett; and Winchester Planning Commission, Commissioner Kenny. ------------- Planning Commission Bylaws and Roles & Responsibilities for 2013 Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Planning Commission’s Bylaws and the Roles and Responsibilities were both reviewed by the Commission last month and two modifications were deemed to be appropriate in the Planning Commission’s Bylaws. Under Article V-Committees, Section 5-8, the word “annual” was stricken from the first sentence to read, “The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific responsibility of the parent committee.” Under Article VI-Commission Meetings, Section 6-5, the phrase, “and/or the Board of Supervisors” was added to read, “Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors.” Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the Planning Commission’s Bylaws and Roles & Responsibilities for the calendar year of 2013, as presented. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2927 Minutes of January 2, 2013 Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed by Citizen Comments portion of the meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS -------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #09-12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers. The property is located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road 9Rt. 671), fronting Route 11 and I-81. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 33-A-125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action – Tabled for 45 Days Commissioner Oates said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated the proposal is to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with proffers. Mr. Ruddy reported that in 2009, the Board of Supervisors, following a unanimous recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, denied Rezoning Application REZ #09-07 for the same property. Their decision was based primarily on concerns that the transportation impacts demonstrated by the TIA for this particular location were not fully addressed or mitigated by the applicant’s proffer. In addition, the project would not provide a LOS (Level of Service) of “C” or better at the two major intersections on Route 11. Mr. Ruddy stated the parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County’s SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) and the site is within the limits of the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan). He said the NELUP designates this site for business use and, therefore, the B2 zoning request is consistent with the NELUP. Mr. Ruddy noted the applicant has proffered a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) identifying the areas of development and recognizing existing drainfields located on the property which serve the adjacent residences. Also, access to the property will not be directly onto Route 11; but rather, the adjacent property will be used to provide inter-parcel accessibility. He noted the proffer statement provides for right-of-way dedication along Route 11 and the construction of a 12-foot travel lane across the frontage of the site along Route 11. This improvement would be extended along the frontage of the adjacent property to the south, which will be the only access to this site as part of the initial development of the site. In addition, the application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and the site by proffering into a signalization agreement for a traffic light at the intersection; however, the proffer enables the applicant to apply a monetary amount to this intersection, should a roundabout be the intersection of choice based on the Eastern Road Plan. Mr. Ruddy commented that if this amount is insufficient to construct roundabout intersection improvements, the applicant should consider constructing this improvement outright, if warranted. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2928 Minutes of January 2, 2013 Mr. Ruddy continued, stating the application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell Road (Rt. 672) by proffering to present the County with a feasibility study and engineered road plan for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike, with the general scope and location of the study being depicted on Exhibit A of the proffer statement. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated the impacts associated with the request have generally been addressed by the applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in this rezoning application than the previous one. With regard to the transportation impacts, he recognized the applicant has provided proffers aimed at addressing those impacts identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the applicant’s proffer of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads should be evaluated to determine if this approach would sufficiently address the impacts identified at this intersection. Mr. Ruddy said that an acceptable LOS is not achieved at this intersection as identified in the applicant’s TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis). Commissioner Manuel inquired if the proffered amount of $100,000 was appropriate for a traffic signal. Mr. Ruddy replied that entering into a signalization agreement varies in the amount and generally caps at $100,000. Commissioner Thomas noted that since the GDP is included as a proffer, any modification to the GDP would require the applicant to come back to the Commission and Board for approval. Commissioner Thomas commented about a slight degradation of the LOS on Brucetown Road and he inquired if VDOT had concerns about that. Mr. Ruddy replied the County has been continually more concerned about that particular intersection than VDOT, from the County’s perspective. Commissioner Mohn referred to the proffered limitation on the ADT (Average Daily Trips) and he asked how this would be implemented. Commissioner Mohn inquired if this would happen at the site plan stage based on specific uses and the ITE rates or would it be a hybrid between the ITE rates and actual trip generation to determine if there is additional capacity. Mr. Ruddy stated it would probably be a combination of both as the project moves forward. Mr. Ruddy said any site development plan provided will have some potential trips based on those ITE numbers designated. Should the project come in different phases, then there will be some consideration of existing land uses, existing development, and actual trips, which then would be compared to future additional construction on the property. Chairman Wilmot referred to the plat dealing with the location of the proposed study. She asked if VDOT had approved this location or indicated that it was sufficient area to study. Mr. Ruddy stated it was solely consistent with what was provided with the Woodside Rezoning Request and the County accepted that as the scope of the study at that time. Mr. Ruddy said it was not something that VDOT has accepted as part of the proffers, but is something the County is accepting with the proffer. Mr. Tim Stowe with Stowe Engineering came forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Stowe stated he prepared the traffic study for the project and the project has received approval from 14 separate reviewing agencies. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2929 Minutes of January 2, 2013 Commissioner Thomas raised concern about the incompatibility between the applicant’s estimated ADT (average daily trips) based on peak hour traffic in the TIA and the applicant’s proffer statement which limited the amount of daily trips. Commissioner Thomas’s issue was that the proffered daily trip number was rather high, while the TIA is based on about one tenth of that number; he said the two calculations don’t match up. Commissioner Thomas commented that if there are 5,700 TPD, the impact on the intersections and the LOS is going to be significantly different than what the applicant projected. Mr. Stowe replied the applicant met with the County’s Transportation Director, Mr. John Bishop, and representatives of VDOT in order to make assumptions about the types of development which could be built on the property and the TIA is based on those assumptions. He said in this case, there will be specialty retail and a fast-food restaurant. Mr. Stowe said at the rezoning stage, they don’t know exactly what type of retail would end up there, whether it’s a retailer that attracts ten trips per day or 100. Therefore, they allowed some head room to be able to build the facility and comply with the proffers, without putting undo restraints on the owner of the property. In response to Commissioner Thomas’s concern, Mr. Stowe believed the outcome would be the same even if he changed the calculations. He said that installing a signal or a round-about at the intersection, where they are sharing that particular entrance with other properties, would be sufficient for much more traffic than what’s been forecasted with this particular study. Chairman Wilmot referred to VDOT’s response to the subject TIA “second submittal,” and she asked if this was a different TIA for this application or if this was the second time VDOT looked at the original TIA. Mr. Stowe said it was the second time VDOT looked at the original TIA; he said the cover sheet has a revision date of September 12, 2012. Chairman Wilmot concluded that the Commission was reviewing a TIA from some time ago. Chairman Wilmot commented that the transportation impacts were the initial dilemma for this property; she thought it would be helpful if the applicant could share how this application is attending to those dilemmas brought forward by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Stowe replied this submittal was different in that it used an inter-parcel connector for access to the property. So it has moved the access further south on Martinsburg Pike, away from the intersection of Cedar Hill Road and Martinsburg Pike. Since the Board acted on this the first time, VDOT has implemented access standards that restrict how close those entrances can be. So this not only follows the Comprehensive Policy Plan for using inter-parcel connectors where possible, it actually proffers to do so. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. The following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Debby Driver, an adjoining property owner, was opposed to the rezoning because it would restrict her from selling her own residential property. Ms. Driver said selling her property as residential would be a challenge since the land in front of her has been rezoned to B3 and B2 and the land behind her is zoned B2. Ms. Driver said she cannot rezone her property because she is in a residential subdivision. In addition, she stated that her access to the granted easement to the inter-parcel connector road is blocked by her neighbors’ existing drainfields. Ms. Driver stated that all of the adjoining property owners would prefer for the applicant to purchase their properties. She believed the rezoning only made sense for the developer and if approved, would be a prime example of spot zoning. Ms. Driver added that water and sewer easements have not been addressed in the proposed application and she was concerned the financial burden would be placed on the adjoining property owners. She asked the Commission to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2930 Minutes of January 2, 2013 recommend denial of the rezoning application in accordance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, as it would not benefit the lifestyle of any of the adjoining residential properties. Ms. Elaine MaGee, an adjoining property owner, was opposed to the rezoning. She said a primary goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is, “to protect and improve the living environment;” however, the proposed rezoning will have a negative impact on her quality of life. She said if the rezoning is approved, her residential property would be devalued, it would be difficult to sell, and it would create a financial burden. Ms. MaGee said she cannot afford to rezone her property and if she could rezone to commercial, she would not be able to get access onto Route 11. She pointed out that although the application states the surrounding property owners would be allowed an inter-parcel connection, the easement is through driveways, travel isles, and parking areas prohibiting access to the inter-parcel connector road. She said the homeowners’ driveways do not go towards this property and the area between this property and the residences is not feasible for providing connector roads. She noted that West Luke Drive dead ends at her neighbor’s property line. Ms. MaGee was also concerned that the transportation impacts have not been adequately addressed in this application. She said the NELUP states that proposed industrial and commercial development should occur only if impacted roads function at a LOS “C” or better; she said the LOS at Route 11 and Hopewell Road falls below that level. She said the NELUP also states that Route 11 should be expanded to a four-lane road, which has not been done. Ms. MaGee thought the traffic light at Brucetown Road had not helped the traffic congestion. In addition, she thought a large construction project, such as this one, may cause damage to the foundation of her home because of the limestone in the area. Ms. MaGee believed Frederick County should be fair to its citizens who have lived and paid taxes in Frederick County and she urged the Commission to recommend denial of the proposed application. Mr. Dan Schall, an adjoining property owner, said he was opposed to the proposed rezoning application for the same reasons previously stated by the other property owners. His concerns included: decreased residential property values; the existing residential drainfields would be negatively impacted from the commercial development and may not function properly; his well water could be negatively affected by runoff; the future possibility that residences will be required to connect to public water and sewer, which is very costly; and regarding the future north-bound on-ramp off Cedar Hill Road, he had concerns about the increased traffic generation. Mr. Mark Regan, an adjoining property owner, believed this proposal was significantly worse than the one rejected by the Board of Supervisors in 2009; he believed the proffers should be doubled with this submittal, but instead they are reduced. He said the application was vague and needed further detail on what is planned to be constructed; there have been no infrastructure improvements and traffic congestion has increased; and, the addition of a dead-end street was an invitation for crime. Mr. Regan thought the traffic signal at Brucetown and Hopewell Roads has had a major negative impact on Route 11 and has created a situation where vehicles are caught stopped on the railroad tracks going south on Route 11. He said the traffic signals northbound on Route 11 at Redbud Road are misaligned and cannot be seen until it’s almost too late to react. Considering this, Mr. Regan did not believe it was practical to install another traffic signal or build a roundabout. He predicted the construction noise and dust will be unbearable. He believed there was a decline in the quality of life for the residents in this part of the County. Mr. Regan asked the Commission members to support the residents with a recommendation of denial for this rezoning application. No one else remained to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2931 Minutes of January 2, 2013 Commissioner Thomas remained concerned about the traffic. In particular, he said the TIA and the applicant’s proffer do not match up and are disconnected. He said in order to reach the projected maximum trips per day, there would be a 50% increase in traffic on Route 11. He did not think it was practical for the site to reach that maximum, but he believed the proffers and the TIA should match up before the Planning Commission acts on this application. He couldn’t imagine that doubling the amount of trips would not have an impact on the LOS at the intersections. Regarding mitigation to the surrounding properties, he understood the views of the speakers, but commented the properties are protected either by a stormwater management area or a no-disturbance area. Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to table this rezoning application for 45 days in order to allow the applicant time to clarify the disconnect between their levels of service within the TIA and the maximum daily trips proffered; and to allow the applicant time to carry out more discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously agrees to table Rezoning #09-12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., for 45 days in order to allow the applicant time to clarify the disconnect between their levels of service within the TIA and their maximum daily trips proffered; and, to allow the applicant time to carry out additional discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from voting; Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) ------------- 2013-2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of Frederick County’s annual budget. If adopted, the CIP is a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Action – Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPPC) Executive Committee met with County deparment and agency representatives to discuss their individual capital improvement project requests, including new projects and modifications to previous requests associated with the 2013-2014 CIP (Capital Improvements Plan). Mr. Ruddy said the role of the CPPC in the CIP process is to ensure the various departmental project requests are in conformance with the County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan. Following these discussions, the CPPC endorsed the 2013-2014 CIP and endorsed its conformance with Frederick County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy stated that both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors concurred with this endorsement during their individual discussions and affirmed the CIP’s conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He noted that this year’s CIP contains 86 projects, submitted by the various public facility providers, including Public Schools, Parks & Recreation, County Government, Airport, Library, and Fire & Rescue. Mr. Ruddy referred to the table within the CIP which identifies all of the projects in order of preference by the various agencies. Mr. Ruddy also referred to the four maps included with the CIP, the general County Government map, one specific to schools, one specific to Parks Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2932 Minutes of January 2, 2013 & Recreation improvements, and one specific to transportation projects. He noted that the CIP package will become a component of Frederick County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chairman Wilmot inquired if there were any changes to the CIP since the Planning Commission’s discussion. Mr. Ruddy replied that dollar amounts have been included for school projects for the first time and Parks & Recreation had modified their description of an aquatic center, particularly, the size and location. Chairman Wilmot also inquired about the change to the Clearbrook Fire & Rescue Station. Mr. Ruddy stated the land value was eliminated from Clearbrook Fire & Rescue’s project request because it was recognized the land value should not have been a component initially. He said that Clearbrook Fire & Rescue had land that was available for this project. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates made a motion that the CIP is in conformance with Frederick County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan and recommended that it be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the 2013-2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County and acknowledges its conformance with Frederick County’s Comprehensive Policy Plan. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the 2013-2014 CIP be approved and that it become a component of Frederick County’s 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. (Note: Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) ------------- A proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District, 165-402.1 Intent, 165-402.02 Permitted Uses, 165-402.03 Conditional Uses, 165-402.04 Number of Uses Restricted, 165-402.05 Gross Density, 165-402.06 Multifamily Housing, 165-402.07 Open Space Requirements, 165-402.08 Recreation Facilities, 165-402.09 Dimensional Requirements, 165-402.10 Phased Development; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 203 Buffers and landscaping, 165-203.01 Landscaping Requirements, 165- 203.02 Buffer and Screening Requirements, Part 201 Supplementary Use Regulations, 165-201.02 Setback Requirements; Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits , Part 101 General provisions, 165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions will update the Residential Performance District. Action – Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the proposed revisions are considered to be significant amendments and the staff and the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Committee) have been working on them for quite some time. Ms. Perkins said the revisions primarily consist of a number of changes to the RP (Residential Performance) District, along with a number of other corresponding zoning ordinance sections. She said overall, the proposed changes are intended to ensure the requirements within the zoning ordinance are: 1) easier to understand in terms of format; 2) provide Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2933 Minutes of January 2, 2013 additional flexibility and housing options; 3) ensure the requirements are up-to-date with the current needs of the community; and 4) to ensure the ordinance is in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ms. Perkins noted the majority of the revisions are more simply placed within a table format, rather than as lists. She also noted the proposed amendments have been through a number of discussions and work sessions, along with Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors discussions. Ms. Perkins said that throughout the entire process, the staff has worked closely with members of the engineering and design community, as well as local developers, to ensure that everyone would be satisfied with the final product. Ms. Perkins proceeded to review the changes for the Commission, beginning with Part 402, Introduction and District Regulations. She stated there were revisions to the intent, as well as some permitted and conditional uses; a number of changes were made to the gross density and multi-family housing tables; there are open space and recreational facility requirements; and there are additions for heights for structures not currently listed under the individual district requirements. Ms. Perkins noted that staff worked closely with the Department of Parks & Recreation to establish a table of recreational facility requirements that was satisfactory to them. Ms. Perkins said the most significant changes are in Part 402 for dimensional requirements for each of the housing types allowed in the RP District. She said there are considerable format changes and minor changes to the Single-Family Detached Rural Traditional, the Detached Traditional, and the Detached Urban housing types and setbacks for unroofed decks, stoops, landings, and similar features are addressed. There are changes to Single-Family Detached Cluster, the Zero Lot Line, as well as a number of changes to the Single-Family Small Lot housing types which include front and back setbacks for unroofed features, as well as an allowance for front setback reduction when rear alleys are utilized. Ms. Perkins stated there is also removal of some housing types that have never been used, such as the Duplex, the Atrium House, and the Weak-Link Townhouse. There are changes to the Multi- plex housing type and a number of changes have been made to Townhouses, such as back-to-back Townhouses. She said another major change is the increase in the structure height from 35’ to 40.’ A number of changes were made to Garden Apartments to allow for a greater number of prototypes. Ms. Perkins described the addition of a new housing type called, Multi-family Residential Buildings, which will only be permitted in areas designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, such as neighborhood villages, urban centers, or areas planned for high-density residential uses. She said there were minor changes to the Age-Restricted Multi-Family housing type. Ms. Perkins next reviewed Part 203, Changes to the Buffer and Landscaping Requirements. Those changes included modifications to the plant tables, slight modifications to the planting procedures, residential separation buffers, and road efficiency buffer revisions. She next proceeded to review the Part 101 and 201 Changes to the Definitions and Supplemental Use Regulations. She said the primary changes here are a new definition for building height, a new definition of Multi- Family Building, and some revisions to the setback requirements to correspond to the proposed changes contained under the dimensional requirements. In conclusion, Ms. Perkins reiterated that the RP District changes are to make the ordinance easier to understand, to provide additional flexibility, to bring the regulations up-to-date with the current needs of the community, and to conform to the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chairman Wilmot inquired if the Board of Supervisors had made any changes when they forwarded the proposed amendment for public hearing. Ms. Perkins replied no; the proposed amendment is consistent with what the Planning Commission saw during their previous discussion. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2934 Minutes of January 2, 2013 Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas commented on the great amount of work the staff put into these revisions. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District, 165- 402.1 Intent, 165-402.02 Permitted Uses, 165-402.03 Conditional Uses, 165-402.04 Number of Uses Restricted, 165-402.05 Gross Density, 165-402.06 Multifamily Housing, 165-402.07 Open Space Requirements, 165-402.08 Recreation Facilities, 165-402.09 Dimensional Requirements, 165-402.10 Phased Development; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 203 Buffers and landscaping, 165-203.01 Landscaping Requirements, 165-203.02 Buffer and Screening Requirements, Part 201 Supplementary Use Regulations, 165-201.02 Setback Requirements; Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits , Part 101 General provisions, 165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage. The proposed revisions will update the Residential Performance District. (Note: Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) ------------- A proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-401.07, Setback Requirements. The proposed revision is to include a setback exemption for accessory structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District, if it is the first structure to be constructed on a property. Action – Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to include a setback exemption for accessory structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District, if it is the first structure to be constructed on a property. Ms. Perkins explained that typically, in the RA District, the dwelling would be the primary structure and the accessory structure would have the lesser setbacks (15’ side/rear) than the dwelling. However, under the current ordinance, if a structure other than a dwelling is constructed on the property first, it would be considered the primary structure and be subject to the primary setbacks (50- 100’ side/rear). Ms. Perkins said the proposed amendment would allow the construction of one non- habitable accessory structure with the lesser setbacks, prior to the construction of the principal structure. This accessory structure could not contain any residential uses prior to the construction of the primary use and could not exceed 650 square feet in size. Ms. Perkins noted this item was discussed by the Board of Supervisors at a work session back on November 14, 2012; the Board believed the structure size should be increased from 500 feet to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2935 Minutes of January 2, 2013 650 feet in size. After this revision, the Board discussed the amendment again at their meeting on December 12, 2012 and sent the amendment forward for public hearing. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates said he raised an issue with this amendment to the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) back in the Spring; he said the intent was for a garden shed and to be non-residential. Commissioner Oates said he was comfortable with approximately 350- 400 square feet, but the DRRC decided on 500 square feet in size. Commissioner Oates believed the basic amendment was a good idea and should be implemented; however, he was concerned that increasing the square footage to 650 square feet was as large as a full-size garage and created a potential for someone to move into it and convert it to a small house. Commissioner Thomas recalled that during the work session discussion, the 650 square feet was based on a standard building size, but he couldn’t recall what type of shed they had in mind. He said a 20 ’X 30’ structure would provide 600 square feet; at 650, it could store a couple tractors. Some additional discussion took place; members thought the revision should be implemented and amended at a later time, if needed. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165- 401.07, Setback Requirements. The proposed revision is to include a setback exemption for accessory structures in the RA (Rural Areas) District, if it is the first structure to be constructed on a property. (Note: Commissioners Lemieux and Crockett were absent from the meeting.) ------------- Chairman Wilmot announced there were no action items pending for the Planning Commission’s January 16, 2013 meeting. CANCELLATION OF THE JANUARY 16, 2013 MEETING Commissioner Oates made a motion to cancel the Planning Commission’s January 16, 2013 meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2936 Minutes of January 2, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL RETREAT Chairman Wilmot announced that the Planning Commission’s Annual Retreat has been scheduled for February 9, 2013, to be held at the Holiday Inn Winchester Historic Gateway at 333 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that Commission members will receive an agenda approximately ten days prior to the meeting. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ June M. Wilmot, Chairman ____________________________ Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01-13 JUDY TINGLE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 4, 2013 Staff Contact: Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector 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 Planning Commission: 02/20/13 Pending Action Board of Supervisors: 03/13/13 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #09-10, approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2011, enabling an In-home Family Day Care Facility. This request is for the purpose of increasing the number of children being cared for at any given time. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than twelve (12) children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one (1) employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use permit. Following the requisite 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 #01-13, Judy Tingle February 4, 2013 LOCATION : This property is located at 284 Tyler Drive (Hiatt’s Run Subdivision). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER : 32A-2-18 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE : Zoned: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE : North: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Orchard West: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE This is a request for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #09-10, approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2011, enabling an In-home Family Day Care Facility. This request is for the purpose of expanding Conditional Use Permit #09-10 to allow for 12 children, rather than eight, being cared for at any given time. : REVIEW EVALUATIONS : Frederick-Winchester Health Department: The Health Department would have no objection to the proposal based on the following conditions: 1) The permitted water use of 600 gallons per day (gpd) for the existing sewage disposal system is not to be exceeded on any day. The water use is calculated as follows: • 75 gpd per resident of the dwelling • 10 gpd per child in the daycare without showers or baths • 16 gpd per child in the daycare with showers or baths • 25 gpd per employee 2) Only prepackaged food and beverages (including water) are to be served to the children in the day care. A change in capacity exceeding the maximum of 12 that you have proposed would require a food permit from the Heath Department. Page 3 CUP #01-13, Judy Tingle February 4, 2013 Planning and Zoning: An in-home daycare facility is a permitted use as a cottage occupation in the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The in-home daycare facility is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a facility in which more than five children, not including those children related to the people who maintain the facility, are received for care, protection, and guidance during only part of the 24-hour day. The Department of Social Services currently has Ms. Judy Tingle licensed for a capacity of eight (8) children. With the approval of a new Conditional Use Permit, The Department of Social Services has granted approval to allow Ms. Tingle to increase the capacity to a maximum of twelve (12) children. The current in-home daycare facility is operating within the principal residential structure on a five acre lot, and staff to date has not received any complaints as it relates to the existing in-home daycare. All the following approved conditions will remain the same except condition number five, which will allow no more than twelve (12) children being cared for at any given time. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/20/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING : Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than twelve (12) children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one (1) employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. T Y L E R D R 32A 2 4 32A 2 5 32A 2 21 32A 2 20 32 A 45 32A 2 6 32A 2 19 32A 2 1832A 2 17 32A 2 16 32A 2 15 32 A 46 32 A 48A CUP0113 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: January 31, 2013Staff: djohnston HIATT RD WE L L T O W N R D TYL E R D R RUSSELL R D PAY N E R D HOPEWELL RD THURSTON C T CUP # 01 - 13Judy TinglePINs:32A - 2 - 18Revision to CUP # 09 - 10 CUP # 01 - 13Judy TinglePINs:32A - 2 - 18Revision to CUP # 09 - 10 0 210 420105 Feet c ATTACHMENT 1 ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.07 Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. A. Setbacks for all lots other than rural preservation lots shall be as set out below. (1) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five-acre lot shall be 60 feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road or ingress/egress easement. (2) Side or rear setbacks. The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: *§ 165-401.07B Remains Unchanged C. Board waiver. The Board may allow the above-referenced setbacks to be reduced if the constraints of the setbacks create an undue hardship on existing parcels of record. Such requests and justification to reduce the setbacks shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation that is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Adjoining Parcel Size Setback (Side and Rear) (feet) 6 acres or less 50 More than 6 acres 100 Orchard 200 Agricultural and Forestral District 200 D Planning Commission Master Development Plans February 4, 2013 This item was discussed by the DRRC at their October 2012 meeting. The DRRC endorsed the proposed revision as drafted and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item at their meeting on December 5, 2012; the Commission forwarded the amendment to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item on January 9, 2013; the Board had no changes and forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The attached documents show the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). A recommendation from the Planning Commission on these proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions Attachments: 1. Draft revisions to Part 801 - revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics 2. Draft revisions to other MDP references in Chapter 165 CEP/bhd DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 1 ARTICLE VIII DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS Part 801 – Master Development Plans § 165-801.01 Intent. The purpose of the master development plan (MDP) is to promote orderly and planned subdivision and development of property within Frederick County. It is the purpose of the MDP to ensure that such development occurs in a manner that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. The MDP shall be used to illustrate the characteristics of the property proposed for subdivision and/or development and of surrounding properties § 165-801.02 When required. and ensure that the requirements of the County Code have been satisfied. A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) and a final MDP shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development, and shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as an informational item. for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. approval Ultimately, the MDP must receive administrative approval from the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MH1 Mobile Home Community District HE High Education District MS Medical Support District B1 Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District OM Office-Manufacturing Park District M1 Industrial Light District M2 Industrial General District EM Extractive Manufacturing District DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 2 B. The MDP shall at least include the subject property proposed for subdivision or development as well as all contiguous land under single or common ownership in the above zoning districts. C. A preliminary MDP may be submitted with an application for a rezoning but shall not be considered binding until approval of a final MDP. § 165-801.03 Waivers. A. RP, R4, R5, MS and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirements of a MDP in the RP (Residential Performance District), the R4 (Residential Planned Community District), the R5 (Residential Recreational Community District), Medical Support District and the MH-1 (Mobile Home Community District), if the proposed property for subdivision or development: (1) Contains 10 or less single-family detached rural traditional, single-family detached traditional or single-family detached urban traditional detached single-family dwelling units (all other permitted housing types shall require a MDP) ; (2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this article. B. M1, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a MDP in the M1 (Light Industrial), Zoning District, the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), Zoning District or the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development: (1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street, road or rights-of-way and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street, road or rights-of-way; (2) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot; (3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 3 C. B1, B2, B3, MS and HE Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a master development plan in the B1 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), MS (Medical Support) or HE (Higher Education) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development: (1) Contains less than five acres in the B1 District and less than 10 acres in the B2, B3, MS or HE District; (2) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street; (3) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one lot; (4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or subdivision; (5) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (6) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. § 165-801.04 Review Preapplication Prior to submission of a preliminary master development plan for conference. review approval, the Department of Planning and Development staff may require, or an applicant may request a the applicant shall request a review preapplication conference with the County staff . The purpose of the preapplication review conference is to review and discuss the nature of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the County Code and to discuss the preparation of a master development plan. A. If required, at the preapplication conference the applicant shall provide a land use plan describing the following: (1) The general location of the site. (2) The general location of proposed roads. (3) The general location and types of proposed uses, environmental features on the site, housing types or open space. (4) The uses on adjoining properties. § 165-801.05 Preapplication conference. Applicants who are proposing a development with a mixture of housing types or uses or with housing types or uses that are different from those on adjoining properties shall request a preapplication DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 4 conference with the Planning Commission. Applicants for other types of development proposals may request such a conference. A. The purpose of the preapplication conference shall be to discuss the proposal in relation to the requirements of the County Code and to obtain advice on the preparation of the master development plan. B. At the preapplication conference, the applicant shall provide a land use plan describing the following: (1) The general location of the site. (2) The general location of proposed roads. (3) The general location of proposed uses, environmental areas, housing types or open space. (4) The uses on adjoining properties. C. The Planning Commission may, at its sole discretion, make or refuse to make recommendations as the result of the preapplication conference. Any recommendations made by the Planning Commission at or in response to the preapplication conference shall not be binding upon the applicant or upon the Planning Commission in its review of the preliminary master development plan. § 165-801.10 165-801.5 Contents of preliminary master development plans. A. The following items shall be required for MDP’s in all Zoning Districts. All required items shall be shown clearly on the plan. All preliminary MDP's shall be prepared in accordance with the following specifications: (1) The scale shall be one inch equals 100 feet or larger (the ratio of feet to inches shall be no more than one hundred feet to one inch) or at a scale acceptable to the Director. The scale shall be sufficient so that all features are discernible. (2) No sheet shall exceed 42 inches in size unless approved by the Director of Planning and Development. If the MDP is prepared on more than one sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets join. (3) All MDP's shall include a North arrow, a scale and a legend describing all symbols. (4) A boundary survey of the entire property related to true meridian and certified by a certified Virginia surveyor, architect or engineer, with all dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, is required for all MDP'S. (5) The total area of the property shall be specified on the MDP. (6) The topography shall be shown at contour intervals acceptable to the Director. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 5 (7) The title of the proposed project; the date, month, year the plan was prepared or revised; the name of the applicant(s), owner(s) and contract owner(s); and the names of the individuals or firms preparing the plan shall be clearly specified. (8) A schedule of phases, with the approximate location of phase boundaries and the order in which the phases are to be developed, shall be provided. (9) The use of all adjoining properties shall be clearly designated on the MDP. (10) All existing, or approved or planned public roads, streets or rights-of-way on the project or within 2,000 feet of the boundaries of the project. (11) Any approved proffers associated with property. (12) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. (13) A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of this requirement. (14) The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of existing facilities. (15) The ownership and use of all adjoining parcels, including parcels across road right of ways. (16) Description of any changes made since approval of any prior MDP’s. (17) An approval block and signature lines for the Director of Planning and Development. B. Contents of a preliminary master development plan in the RP (Residential Performance) District, the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District and the MH-1 (Mobile Home Community) District. The preliminary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between all proposed housing types and land uses, including the following information: (1) A land use plan, showing the location, arrangement and approximate boundaries of all proposed land uses. (2) The approximate acreage in common open space, in each use and housing type and in roads, streets or rights-of-way for each phase and the total development. (3) The location and approximate boundaries of proposed housing types conceptually shown in accord with residential performance dimensional requirements. (4) The proposed number of dwelling units of each type in each phase and in the total development. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 6 (5) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes and woodlands. (6) The location of environmental protection land to be included in common open space. (7) The approximate acreage of each type of environmental protection land, the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in common open space. (8) The amount, approximate boundaries and location of common open space, with the percentage of the total acreage of the site to be placed in common open space. (9) The location and general configuration of recreational facilities, with a general statement of the types of recreational facilities to be provided. (10) The location and extent of proposed buffers, with statements, profiles, cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. (11) The proposed location, arrangement, and right-of-way widths of roads and streets, including roads and streets providing access to adjoining parcels, shall be in accordance with § 165-202.04. (12) The location and arrangement of street entrances, driveways and parking areas. (13) The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of existing facilities. (13) A conceptual plan for stormwater management with the location of stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one lot. (14) Calculations describing all proposed bonus factors with the location of and specifications for bonus improvements, when proposed. (16) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. (17) A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of this requirement. C. Contents of a preliminary master development plan in the M1 (Light Industrial) District, the M2 (Industrial General) District, the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, the HE (Higher Education) District, the B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, the OM (Office-Manufacturing Par)k District and the MS (Medical Support) District. The preliminary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between streets and land uses, including the following: (1) A conceptual plan, showing the location and arrangement of proposed uses. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 7 (2) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater detention areas, steep slopes and woodlands, as defined, and the approximate acreage of each type of environmental feature, including the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in open or landscaped areas. (3) The proposed location and arrangement of all streets and proposed and existing utility systems. (4) The proposed location of entrances to the development from existing public streets. The location and arrangement of existing and proposed public or private roads, existing or proposed entrances, and driveways from existing and proposed public or private streets. (5) A conceptual plan for stormwater management and description and the location of all stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one parcel. (6) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. (7) All proposed buffering and screening required by this chapter. The location and extent of proposed buffers required by this Chapter, with statements, profiles, cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. (8) The use of adjoining parcels and the location of adjoining streets and utilities. § 165-801.06 Preliminary Master development plan Applicants shall submit 42 submission. the number of copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and Development specified by the Department of Planning and Development MDP application, together with completed application materials required by the Department of Planning and Development. Final approval of the preliminary MDP shall be given by the Board of Supervisors. A. Applicants shall provide approval comments on the proposed development from various review agencies or departments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The submission shall be complete and the application shall commence through the public meeting process when the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments have been received by the Director of Planning and Development, when a review conference has been held, when a preapplication conference has been held, if required, and when the preliminary master development plan has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, if required. B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Standards. C. The Director of Planning and Development may require the applicant to present the preliminary MDP to a design for review. The committee shall make recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning whether the plan meets the requirements of the Frederick County Code. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 8 D. C. When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments to the Planning Commission for its as an informational item. (1) The Planning Commission shall act on the preliminary MDP within 60 days of the date of the presentation of the plan to the full Commission. The Planning Commission shall either approve the plan, approve it with required changes or deny the plan. If the Planning Commission fails to act within 60 days, the plan shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation. (2) The Planning Commission shall notify the Board of Supervisors of its action on the proposed preliminary MDP and of any required changes or reasons for denial. If the preliminary MDP is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant may choose to withdraw the application and resubmit it with changes as a new plan, rather than proceeding to the Board of Supervisors. However, the applicant may choose to proceed with the recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors. D C. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to action of the Planning Commission, copies of the plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for its as an informational item. consideration. The Board shall either approve the preliminary MDP, approve it with required changes or deny the plan. E D. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were discussed or required by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that the Planning Commission review the plan as a new preliminary MDP. F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Code. Any such plans may be considered concurrently by the Planning Commission and may be referred to the Board of Supervisors for approval. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 9 Master Development Plan Approval Process § 165-801.07 Final master development plan. A. The final MDP shall conform to all requirements of the County Code. A.B Applicants shall submit 14 a minimum of five copies of the final MDP to the Department of Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator. B. C. The Director shall approve the final MDP if all requirements of the County Code and all review agencies have been met, and if a preliminary MDP was presented to approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and if all required changes have been made and all requirements of the County Code have been met, within 60 days of its submission. Failure of the Director to act in 60 days shall be deemed approval. D. A MDP shall not be considered final until it is signed by the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator. § 165-801.08 Changes to approved Master Development P Changes to an approved MDP shall occur only after lans. review approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors using the procedures required for the approval of a new plan. The Director of Preapplication Conference with Staff if required or requested Applicant submits completed MDP application to Staff, including all agency approval comments. MDP is presented to the Planning Commission as an information item. All comments are forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. MDP is presented to the Board of Supervisors as an informational item. Final MDP approval by Staff. Final subdivision or site plan can be submitted for review. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 10 Planning and Development may approve minor changes without following the full procedures, if such approval does not violate the intent of this chapter and section. Such minor changes shall not include increases in the density or intensity of development, changes to entrance or street layout, changes to stormwater layout or other major design changes. § 165-801.09 Preliminary master development plan submission. A preliminary MDP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The preliminary MDP is to serve as a conceptual review plan and is not intended to show the location of individual lot lines or structures. § 165-801.12 9 The Board of Supervisors may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by the applicant to the County for the costs associated with the review of the MDP. Master development plan review fees. *§ 165-801.10 Relocated to 165-801.5 § 165-801.11 Final master development plans. A. The final MDP shall conform with the requirements in §§ 165-801.04 through 165-801.10. B. Descriptions of changes made since approval of the preliminary MDP or as required with approval of the preliminary MDP shall be provided. C. An approval block and signature lines for the Director of Planning and Development shall be provided. DRAFT REVISIONS TO PART 801 AND 802 11 Master Development Plan Approval Process Various MDP References – Chapter 165 (Table of Contents) ARTICLE VIII DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS Part 801 – Master Development Plans 165-801.01 Intent. 165-801.02 When required. 165-801.03 Waivers. 165-801.04 Review conference. 165-801.05 Preapplication conference. Preapplication conference Contents of master development plans. 165-801.06 Preliminary Master development plan 165-801.07 Final master development plan. submission. 165-801.08 Changes to approved master development 165-801.09 Preliminary Master development plan submission. plans. 165-801.10 Contents of preliminary master development plans. Master development plan review fees. 165-801.11 Final master development plans. 165-801.12 Master development plan review fees. ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101 – General Provisions § 165-101.02 Definitions & word usage. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN - A general plan of development approved reviewed by the Board of Supervisors for new developments in certain zoning districts before subdivision or site plan approval, according to the requirements of this chapter. Part 202 – Off-Street Parking, Loading and Access § 165-202.04 Streets; Inter-parcel connectors. All residential subdivisions of more than 10 lots in the RP, R-4, R-5, and MS (with residential uses) Zoning Districts shall have streets connecting to adjoining parcels. If adjoining parcels are developed or have had a subdivision plat approved, the connecting street shall coordinate with the existing or platted streets in the adjoining parcel. If an adjoining parcel is undeveloped, the location of the connecting street shall be as shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP) approved reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. This requirement for inter-parcel connector streets may be waived by the Board of Supervisors upon approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) if the Board finds: i) that a connector street to an adjoining parcel is not likely to be needed; ii) that the connector street would be required to be placed in a location which is impractical for location of a street; iii) that an adjoining undeveloped Various MDP References – Chapter 165 parcel is not likely to be developed in a manner to make a connector street necessary or appropriate; or iv) other good cause shown by the applicant not contrary to good planning policy. All inter-parcel connectors, public or private, shall be built to the Virginia Department of Transportation engineering standards. Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District § 165-402.01 Intent. B. Within this Part 402, a number of general performance requirements are identified. When a housing development has satisfied these requirements, this Part 402 is intended to provide a large degree of flexibility in development and housing design. This design process is accomplished through a master development plan which is designed in cooperation with the County staff and Planning Commission and adopted reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of a development is determined through the adoption of the master plan by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. C. It is the intent of this Part 402 to allow a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Within this Part 402, the permitted multifamily development percentages and densities are identified. Multifamily housing types are allowed only when they adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The preliminary master development plan shall specify the amount and percentages of all proposed housing types. The preliminary master development plan requires specific approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. ARTICLE V PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Part 501 – R4 Residential Planned Community District § 165-501.01 Intent. The intention of the Residential Planned Community District is to provide for a mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. All land to be contained within the Residential Planned Community District shall be included within an approved master development plan. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of development is determined through the final approval adoption of the master development plan by the County the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Special care is taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The district is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary facilities, Various MDP References – Chapter 165 roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development. Planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Part 502 – R5 Residential Recreational Community District § 165-502.02 Master development plan. All land to be contained within the Residential Recreational Community District shall be included within an approved master development plan. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of development is determined through the final approval adoption of the master development plan by the County § 165-502.05 Design requirements. the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Special care is taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R5 developments to ensure that necessary facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R5 development. Residential recreational community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. M. Alternative access. A combined system of pedestrian and/or bicycle access, in the form of paved sidewalks, interior walkways or bike paths, shall be provided to allow walking or bicycling between every use, structure or recreational facility. Such access shall be connected with existing travelways adjacent to the residential recreational community development. In age-restricted communities, at the time of master development plan approval review , the Board of Supervisors may allow local streets without sidewalks to be used and incorporated into the system of pedestrian and bicycle access. The type and nature of trails to be used shall be identified, detailed and approved on the master development plan. Part 504 – MS Medical Support District § 165-504.03 District area, floor-to-area ratios, and residential gross densities. C. The Board of Supervisors may provide for the administrative approval of a parcel subdivision which fronts on private street systems during the master development plan approval review process. E REZONING APPLICATION #09-12 CLEARBROOK RETAIL CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: December 18, 2012 (Updated: February 5, 2013) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Planning Commission: 01/02/13 Public hearing held; Action tabled 45 days Action 02/20/13 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/13/13 Pending PROPOSAL : To rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. LOCATION : The property is located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81. UPDATE, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 02/20/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Following a public hearing at which four neighbors spoke in opposition to the request, The Planning Commission tabled the request for 45 days. This was to allow the applicant time to clarify the perceived disconnect between the LOS within the TIA and the maximum daily trips proffered, and in addition, to allow time for the applicant to carry out more discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. It had also been pointed out by staff that the Applicant’s proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads was similar to the approach proffered with Rezoning #18-06 of Woodside Commercial. The Applicant has revised their proffer statement, dated January 28, 2013. The revision is based upon input they received during the meeting and at a follow up meeting with the neighbors. Proffer 5.b. and 5.c. have been added to the modified proffer statement to address future interparcel access and timing of construction activities on the site. The TIA Trip Generation table has been added to your package which clarifies that the number of trips proffered is accurately consistent with that modeled in the TIA. This is contrary to what the Applicant’s representative expressed during the meeting which led to some confusion. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 2 The B2, Business General, land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The impacts associated with this request have generally been addressed by the Applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in this rezoning application. With regards to the transportation impacts, it is recognized that the Applicant has provided proffers aimed at addressing those impacts identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the Commission should evaluate if the Applicant’s proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. An acceptable level of service (Level of Service C or better), is not achieved at this intersection as identified in the Applicant’s TIA. The required public hearing was held on January 2, 2013. Therefore, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 3 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 application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 01/02/13 Tabled 45 days Action 02/20/13 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/13/13 Pending PROPOSAL : To rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. LOCATION : The property is located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER : 33-A-125 PROPERTY ZONING : RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE : Residential and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE : North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant RA (Rural Areas) Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural/Interstate 81 Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: District Planning has completed our review of the subject TIA (2nd submittal dated 9/17/12), and finds that our previous comments have been adequately addressed. Fire and Rescue: Plans approval recommended. Fire Marshal : Plans approved. Public Works Department: We have no comments related to the proposed rezoning. Consequently, Public Works grants our approval of the proposed rezoning. Department of Inspections: Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the Authority’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area covered by the Authority. Based on the anticipated usage, water capacity is presently available. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste water treatment plant is presently available. Conveyance capacity will be contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing force main. Both water and sanitary sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site. Service Authority: No comments. Frederick-Winchester Health Department : No objection if public water and sewer are provided and the sewage disposal system easements are protected by a 20’ buffer. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does identify a core battlefield within this area. Frederick County Public Schools: FCPS offers no comments. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 5 Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated June 26, 2012, from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. Transportation: Included within attached memo (page 2) dated June 22, 2012, from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning Department: Please see attached memo dated June 22, 2012, from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County’s agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2009, The Board of Supervisors, following a unanimous recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, denied Rezoning Application RZ#09-07 for the same property primarily for the following reasons. The Commission and Board members expressed concern that transportation impacts demonstrated by the TIA for this particular location were not fully addressed or mitigated by the applicant’s proffer. In addition, the project would not provide a LOS “C” or better at the two major intersections on Route 11. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. Appendix I, the Area Plans, of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 6 Land Use. The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County’s Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan designates the site for business use. The B2 zoning request is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. Site Access and Transportation. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does include this portion of the County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four-lane facility. Also in the vicinity are identified improvements to the interchange with Interstate 81 and the potential realignment of Brucetown Road, with the road plans identifying a potential connection north of its current location, across Route 11 from the proposed access to this site. The Plan states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The Level of Service at the nearby Route 11 and Hopewell Road intersection falls below this expected Level of Service. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter-parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Pedestrian accommodations have been addressed with this project with the construction of a bike and pedestrian path along Route 11. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. This area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has previously identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design. 4) Potential Impacts The application’s proffer statement limits the amount of acreage that is available for commercial development to 7.5 acres and further limits the development by capping the maximum amount of average daily vehicle trips to 5,734. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 7 Frederick County Transportation Comments: Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner, has expressed that the Applicant’s recognition of off-site transportation impacts is appropriate. The Applicant’s proffer to provide engineering services to address the potential realignment of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads with Route 11 is a positive step to addressing the failing level of service in this location. However, consideration should be given to speeding up the time frame for completion of this project to less than 36 months. In addition, it may be worthwhile including an evaluation of the realignment that directly aligns with the access to this area of commercial development. Transportation had also commented that the Applicant’s proffer to contribute a fixed amount of $100,000 towards the construction of a roundabout at this location should a signal not be installed, should be evaluated. In case this amount is insufficient to construct roundabout intersection improvements, the Applicant should consider constructing this improvement outright, if warranted. 5) Proffer Statement – Dated April 24, 2012 and revised on October 23, 2012 A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan. The Plan identifies the areas of development and recognizes the existing drainfields located on the property which serves the adjacent residences. Disturbance in and around this area would be prohibited consistent with the GDP. B) Land Use The application’s proffer statement limits the amount of commercial development to that which generates less than the 5,734 Average Daily Trips as presented in the TIA. The Applicant further prohibits the development of Truck Stops – Retail as defined in SIC 5541, and Adult Retail. The Applicant has provided additional landscape screening above that required by ordinance, adjacent to the neighboring residential properties. The Applicant has proffered a split rail fence along Route 11. The other corridor enhancement proffers may be considered redundant as the Applicant on the GDP has identified this as an undeveloped stormwater management area. C) Access Management. Access to the property will not be directly to Route 11. Rather, the adjacent property will be used to provide inter-parcel accessibility. This property is known as the Clearbrook Business Center. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 8 D) Transportation The proffer statement provides for right-of-way dedication along Route 11 and the construction of a 12 foot travel lane across the frontage of the site along Route 11. It should be clarified that this improvement would be extended along the frontage of the adjacent property to the South which will be the only access to this site as part of the initial development of the site. The application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and the site by proffering into a signalization agreement for a traffic light at the intersection. The proffer enables the Applicant to apply a monetary amount to this intersection should a roundabout be the intersection of choice based on the Eastern Road Plan. In case this amount is insufficient to construct roundabout intersection improvements, the Applicant should consider constructing this improvement outright, if warranted. The application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell Road, Route 672, by proffering to present the County with a feasibility study and engineered road plan for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike, the general scope and location of the study being depicted on exhibit A of the proffer statement. The Planning Commission should evaluate if this approach sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. E) Community Facilities This application proffers a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.10 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue Services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 01/02/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The B2, Business General, land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The impacts associated with this request have generally been addressed by the Applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in this rezoning application. With regards to the transportation impacts, it is recognized that the Applicant has provided proffers aimed at addressing those impacts identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the Commission should evaluate if the Applicant’s proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. An acceptable level of service (Level of Service C or better), is not achieved at this intersection as identified in the Applicant’s TIA. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #09-12 Clearbrook Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 1/02/13 MEETING: Four adjoining property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. They believed the commercial retail center next to them would devalue their residential properties and negatively affect their quality of life. Some said their access for the granted easement to the inter-parcel connector road was blocked by neighbors’ existing drainfields, driveways, and parking areas. The residents expressed concern they would not be able to sell their residentially-zoned properties because they were surrounded by commercial development and they could not afford to rezone their properties to commercial. There were concerns about additional traffic congestion and that the LOS at Route 11 and Hopewell Road falls below LOS “C.” One property owner believed the traffic signal at Brucetown and Hopewell has negatively impacted Route 11 and has created a situation where vehicles are caught stopped on the railroad tracks going south on Route 11; there were also negative comments about the misaligned traffic signals on Route 11 at Redbud Road They did not think it was practical to install yet another traffic signal. Concerns were expressed that existing residential drainfields, as well as well water, may be negatively impacted from the commercial development. Residents said they were not inclined to hook up to public water and sewer because it was so costly. A Commission member raised an issue about the incompatibility between the applicant’s estimated ADT based on peak hour traffic in the TIA and the applicant’s proffer statement which limited the amount of daily trips. The issue was the proffered daily trips was a rather high number, but the TIA was based on about one tenth of that number, resulting in the incompatibility between the two calculations. The Chairman commented that the transportation impacts were the initial dilemma for this property and she asked the applicant how this application is attending to those issues brought forward by the Board of Supervisors. The applicant replied this submittal differed from the original because it uses an inter- parcel connector for access to the property; the access is moved further south on Martinsburg Pike, away from the intersection of Cedar Hill Road and Martinsburg Pike. Other questions from the Commission included the appropriateness of the dollar amount proffered for the traffic signal; verification that any modification to the MDP would require re-submittal for review by the Planning Commission; how the proffered limitation on the ADT would be implemented on the site; and the appropriateness of the applicant’s approach of proffering a feasibility study and engineered road plan for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 45 days in order to allow the applicant time to clarify the disconnect between the LOS within the TIA and the maximum daily trips proffered; and, in addition, to allow time for the applicant to carry out more discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from all discussion and voting on this application. Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) CLEARBROOKBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision 0111 §¨¦81§¨¦81 ST671 ST671 WO O D S I D E R D CED A R H I L L R D MA R T I N S B U R G P I K E 33 A114B 33 A114A 33 2 A 33 A 119 34 A 11A 33 A 120 33 A 122 33 A 121 33 A 123 33 A123A 33 A122A 33 A124D 33 A124A 33 A124B 33 A 125 33 A125A 33 A 131 33 A125B 33 A 124 33 A 126 33 A 129 33 A112F 33 A125C 33 A125D 33 A125E 33 A 128 33 A 127 REZ0912 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: December 10, 2012Staff: mruddy Clear Brook REZ # 09 - 12Clearbrook Retail Center14.53 acres from RA to B2PINs:33 - A - 125 0 0.085 0.170.0425 Miles REZ # 09 - 12Clearbrook Retail Center14.53 acres from RA to B2PINs:33 - A - 125 f REZONING APPLICATION #01-13 WOODSIDE COMMERCIAL CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 5, 2013 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 02/20/13 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/13/13 Pending PROPOSAL: To revise proffers associated with Rezoning #18-06. This revision relates to the “Transportation” section of the proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Route 11 and 3,000+/- feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672), also known as Exit 321of Interstate 81. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 02/20/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a minor revision to the proffer statement approved with rezoning #18-06. The Applicant is looking to replace proffer 1.e. from the Transportation Section with a comparable monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements. The original proffer 1.e. that is to be replaced provided that the Applicant would present to the County engineering a surveying services prior to the first site plan or at the request of the County. This is a similar proffer to that offered with the Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning. It should be noted that the monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements, new proffer 1.e. is to be paid prior to the first occupancy permit. The Applicant has provided estimates for the services as a representation of the value of the original proffer. This modification has been reviewed by the County Attorney and is in the acceptable form. County Transportation Deputy Director Bishop has reviewed the changed proffer and has offered: I have reviewed the proffer change proposed in the Woodside Commercial Center application. I have no issue with the change to a cash proffer from the previously proffered design and photography. I do, however, disagree with changing the trigger of the proffer to the occupancy permit from its current form. Based upon current events, I expect there is a good chance that this proffer will be needed for the use it was intended for (Brucetown/Hopewell intersection) prior to an occupancy permit. Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. A public hearing is not required. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #01-13 Woodside Commercial Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 2 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 application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 02/20/13 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/13/13 Pending PROPOSAL: To revise proffers associated with Rezoning #18-06. This revision relates to the “Transportation” section of the proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Route 11 and 3,000+/- feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672), also known as Exit 321of Interstate 81. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-A-124A PROPERTY ZONING: B3 (Industrial Transition) PRESENT USE: Residential and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant RA (Rural Areas) Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural/Interstate 81 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Frederick County Attorney: Proffer is in an acceptable form. Rezoning #01-13 Woodside Commercial Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 3 Transportation: I have reviewed the proffer change proposed in the Woodside Commercial Center application. I have no issue with the change to a cash proffer from the previously proffered design and photography. I do however disagree with changing the trigger of the proffer to the occupancy permit from its current form. Based upon current events I expect there is a good chance that this proffer will be needed for the use it was intended for (Brucetown/Hopewell intersection) prior to an occupancy permit. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History Previously RA in zoning, this property was rezoned to B3 (Industrial Transition) District as a part of the Woodside Commercial Center in 2007, Rezoning 18-06. 5) Proffer Statement – Dated March 15, 2007 and final revision on January 28, 2013. Transportation Original 1.e. Contributions for Road Improvements in recognition of off-site transportation impacts. The engineering and surveying services (identified by items i and ii) will begin prior to the approval of first site plan or upon request by Frederick County; whichever comes first. i. The applicant hereby proffers to present the County with an engineered road plan for the realignment of Brucetown Road and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike. The design will extend 300’ north and 300’ south on Martinsburg Pike from the intersection with Hopewell Road, and be bounded by the Winchester and Western Railroad to the west and the Clearbrook Fire Station to the east. A diagram of this area for the intersection design is attached and labeled as exhibit “A”. ii. The applicant hereby proffers to present the County with aerial mapping of the Martinsburg Pike corridor. The aerial mapping will begin at the Clearbrook Convenience site entrance to the south and extend 3.125 miles north to the State line with a corridor width of 300’. The aerial mapping will produce topography with 1’ contour intervals at 50’ scale accuracy. A diagram of this intersection is attached and labeled as exhibit “B”. New 1.e. Contributions for Road Improvements in recognition of off-site transportation impacts. i. $75,000 to Frederick County to be paid prior to the first occupancy permit. Rezoning #01-13 Woodside Commercial Retail Center February 5, 2013 Page 4 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/20/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a minor revision to the proffer statement approved with rezoning #18-06. The Applicant is looking to replace proffer 1.e. from the Transportation Section with a comparable monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements. The original proffer 1.e. that is to be replaced provided that the Applicant would present to the County engineering a surveying services prior to the first site plan or at the request of the County. This is a similar proffer to that offered with the Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning. It should be noted that the monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements, new proffer 1.e. is to be paid prior to the first occupancy permit. The Applicant has provided estimates for the services as a representation of the value of the original proffer. Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. A public hearing is not required. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. 0111 ST671 CE D A R H I L L R D WO O D S I D E R D MA R T I N S B U R G P I K E 33 2 A 33 A114A 33 A 119 33 A 120 34 A 11A 33 A 122 33 A 121 33 A 123 33 A133A 33 A122A 33 A124D 33 A124A 33 A 133 33 A124B 33 A 125 33 A 13233 A125A 33 A 131 33 A 133 33 A125B 33 A 126 33 A 12933 A125C 33 A112F 33 A125D 33 A125E 33 A 128 33 A 127 REZ0113 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)0 150 30075 Feet I Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: January 31, 2013Staff: mruddy Clear Brook REZ # 01 - 13Woodside Commercial CenterProffer RevisionPINs:33 - A - 124A REZ # 01 - 13Woodside Commercial Center Proffer RevisionPINs:33 - A - 124A SUBDIVISION REQUEST #06-12 300N, LLC Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: January 31, 2013 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator ______________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed Planning Commission 02/20/13 Pending Action Board of Supervisors: 03/13/13 Pending LOCATION : The subject property is located adjacent and east of Route 522, .50 miles south of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 50, at 186 Wincrest Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER : 64-1-A1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR 02/20/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: In order for the proposed commercial lots on the 300N, LLC property to be subdivided utilizing private roads, the Planning Commission will need to grant a waiver of Section 144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is seeking two actions: • Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the waiver of public road requirement. • Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for two-lot subdivision. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Subdivision Request #06-12, 300N, LLC January 31, 2013 Page 2 ___________________________________________________________________________ This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission 02/20/13 Pending Action Board of Supervisors 03/13/13 Pending LOCATION : The subject property is located adjacent and east of Route 522, .50 miles south of the intersection of Route 522 and Route 50, at 186 Wincrest Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER : 64-1-A1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE Land Use: Office/Warehouse : B3 (Business Industrial Transition) District ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE : North: B2 (Business General) Use: Vacant South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Public Garage East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Airport West: B1 (Business Neighborhood) Use: Residential/Industrial M2 (Industrial General) SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 6.67 acres into two (2) parcels of 2.3 acres and 4.373. Fire and Rescue : No comments Winchester Regional Airport: Rezoning should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport with the existing structures and use. My only comment would be that the owner be made aware of the proximity of the site within the approach surface of the runway and the likelihood on noise from arriving and departing aircraft. Any proposed new construction would be reviewed for impacts as part of the regular site plan review process. Subdivision Request #06-12, 300N, LLC January 31, 2013 Page 3 Planning: When Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967, this property was zoned B3 (Industrial Transition Business) District, and had no approved Master Development Plan (MDP). This request is for subdivision of a 6.67+/- acre parcel into two (2) parcels of 6.67+/- acres and 2.3+/- acres. These parcels are located within and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as indicated by the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. Staff Review Therefore, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action on this Subdivision request is necessary. : The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the B3 Zoning District without an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) be presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for final approval (Chapter144-12-B). This proposed subdivision has met the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements, and has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. The design elements associated with the MDP have not been waived. Requested Waivers: The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 144-24 C of the Frederick County Code (Subdivision) to allow these parcels to be served by a private access. This Section of The Frederick County Code requires that all new parcels must abut and have direct access to a state maintained public street/road. Access to these parcels will be via the existing private 60 foot ingress/egress (Wincrest Drive) from Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 02/20/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING : In order for the proposed commercial lots on the 300N, LLC property to be subdivided utilizing private roads, the Planning Commission will need to grant a waiver of Section 144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is seeking two actions: • Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the waiver of public road requirement. • Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for two-lot subdivision. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. PREMIER P L F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E WINCR E S T D R 64 A 9 64 A 9C 64 A 9D 64B A 72 64 A 9B 64B A33A 64B A 33 64B A 38 64 A 88 64BA 39 64BA 32 64B A 31 64 A 9E 64B 2 164B 2 2 64B 2 3 64B A 30 64 A 8 64 A 5 64B A 21 64 A 7 64 1 A1 64B A 25 64B A 24 64B A 28 64B A 2264B A 23 64 A A4 64B A 26 64B A 20 64 A 6 64 A A 64 A A3 64B A 15 64B A 17 64B A 14 64 A 4E 64 A 4B 64 8 8A SUB0612 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: January 31, 2012Staff: mcheran Winchester COSTELLO D R F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E 01522 WINDY HILL LNWINDY HILL L N PREMIER PLPREMIER PL BUFFLICK RD F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E FR O N T R O Y A L P I K E FR O N T R O Y A L P I K E SUB # 06 - 12300N LLC Subdivision RequestPINs:64 - 1 - A1 SUB # 06 - 12300N LLC Subdivision RequestPINs:64 - 1 - A1 0 330 660165 Feet