Loading...
PC 06-19-13 Meeting Agenda AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia June 19, 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) May 1, 2013 and May 15, 2013 Minutes ......................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 202 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Access, 165-202.03 Motor Vehicle Access – Revise and update motor vehicle access requirements, specifically entrance spacing requirements. Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165-401.06 Permitted lot sizes – Revise in order to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded. Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Other 8) Adjourn Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2966 Minutes of May 1, 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 May 1, 2013. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and David Smith, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison. ABSENT: Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee’ S. Arlotta, Clerk. ----------- CALL TO ORDER AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. ------------- MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the minutes of March 20, 2013 were unanimously adopted as presented. ------------- COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) – 4/15/13 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported the DRRC discussed TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) Density Table Revisions. He said the revisions to the zoning ordinance to update the TDR Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2967 Minutes of May 1, 2013 density rights would make this table consistent with the new Residential Performance (RP) standards. Commissioner Unger stated the second item discussed was the addition of MEDCottages. He said this revision to the zoning ordinance would include standards for the inclusion of temporary family health care structures as a permitted use. ------------- Transportation Committee – 4/22/13 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the Transportation Committee reviewed the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Plan Updates and this was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the committee’s endorsement. The second item on the agenda was the discussion of a request by the Wakeland Manor HOA for the placement of “Children at Play” signs throughout the subdivision. He said the committee decided to set up parameters for the placement of this type of sign. Commissioner Oates said the third item was a request from Red Bud Run Subdivision for “No Parking” signs; the committee decided those signs were not necessary. The last item was a request to review the speed limit on Apple Pie Ridge Road for trucks and automobiles to have the same speed limits. He said the committee members noted this was just recently studied and reposted about two years ago and did not require further study at this time. ------------- City of Winchester Planning Commission Commissioner David Smith, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported that over the previous several months, the Commission has been studying revisions to the temporary signage zoning text. In addition, he said the Commission has been working on the Update to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Smith stated the Planning Commission is also working with City Council on regulations for first floor apartment dwellings within the first and secondary districts. ------------- Committee Appointments Chairman Wilmot announced the appointment of Eric Lowman to the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC). She said Mr. Lowman is a citizen member representing the Red Bud District. Chairman Wilmot announced the appointment of Mr. Tim Stowe to the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC). She said Mr. Stowe is citizen member representing the Back Creek District. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2968 Minutes of May 1, 2013 Citizen Comments Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Establishment of the North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal District, a new agricultural and forestal district containing 400.186+ acres consisting of six parcels. The proposed district is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District, straddling Old Charleston Road (Rt. 761) to the north and south, Opequon Creek to the east, and Slate Lane to the west. Action – Recommended Approval Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this particular item, due to a potential conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors typically reviews and amends the Agricultural and Forestal Districts within Frederick County every five years. Mr. Cheran reviewed with the Commission the criteria required for inclusion within an Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Cheran said the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on March 18, 2013, and unanimously recommended the creation of a new Agricultural and Forest District, to be known as the North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Cheran said the proposed district contains 400.186+ acres within six parcels. These parcels are located in the Stonewall Magisterial District, straddling Old Charleston Road (Rt. 761) to the north and south, Opequon Creek to the east, and Slate Lane to the west. He said the proposed district is agriculturally significant and the predominantly agricultural operations in the new district are 90 percent agriculture (livestock and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. He said the area within the district is rural in nature. He added the location of the proposed district lies outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is not a part of any land use plan or study by Frederick County. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak either in favor or opposition to the creation of this new district and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Maddy Radford, an adjoining property owner, introduced herself and her husband, Carl. Ms. Radford wanted to know how the creation of the new North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal District would affect their property. Chairman Wilmot suggested that Mr. Cheran meet with the Radfords directly after the meeting to discuss the matter and answer the Radford’s questions. No issues were raised by the Commission members. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2969 Minutes of May 1, 2013 BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the establishment of the North Opequon Agricultural and Forestal District, a new agricultural and forestal district containing 400.186+ acres consisting of six parcels. The proposed district is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District, straddling Old Charleston Road (Rt. 761) to the north and south, Opequon Creek to the east, and Slate Lane to the west. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from voting; Commissioners Mohn, Madagan, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) ------------- Consideration of an increase of 268.548+ acres to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The proposed increase to this district is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District along Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north, and Muse Road (Rt. 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Rt. 708) to the east. Action – Recommended Approval Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Kenney said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this item is for consideration of an addition to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District within Frederick County. Mr. Cheran said the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District along Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north, and Muse Road (Rt. 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Rt. 708) to the east. He noted the existing district contains 615+ acres within 13 parcels and is managed by one property owner. The proposed addition will be two parcels containing 162+ acres and 106+ acres for a total acreage of 268+ acres. Mr. Cheran stated if this addition is approved, the resulting district will contain 15 parcels and 883+ acres managed by one property owner. Mr. Cheran stated the predominantly agricultural operations in this district are 90 percent agriculture (orchard and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the district is rural in nature. He said the location of the proposed addition lies outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is not a part of any land use plan or study by Frederick County. Mr. Cheran stated the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on March 18, 2013, and unanimously recommended approval of the increase to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak either in favor or opposition to this application. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No issues were raised by the Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2970 Minutes of May 1, 2013 Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend approval of the request to increase acreage to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the addition of two parcels, containing 162+ acres and 106+ acres, for a total increase of 268.548+ acres to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The resulting district will contain 15 parcels consisting of 883+ acres managed by one property owner. The proposed increase to this district is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District along Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north, and Muse Road (Rt. 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Rt. 708) to the east. (Note: Commissioners Oates and Kenney abstained from voting; Commissioners Madagan, Mohn, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) ------------- INFORMATION & DISCUSSION ITEMS Discussion of the Rural Preservation Lot Requirements. The proposed revision will allow divisions to existing recorded rural preservation tracts. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to allow divisions to existing recorded rural preservation tracts, so long as the division results in acreage being added to the preservation tract and only if the acreage being added comes from the overall rural preservation subdivision. Ms. Perkins noted the existing ordinance states that “no future division” of these tracts is permitted; therefore, any acreage additions would be considered a “division” and would not be permitted once the preservation lot has been recorded. Ms. Perkins reported this item was discussed via email by the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) in March 2013. She said the DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendment being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. One comment received recommended the amendment be expanded to allow boundary line adjustments/consolidations of adjacent properties; however, at this time the text has not been revised to reflect the comment. Commissioner Oates asked why this would not allow acreage from outside the existing rural preservation subdivision to be added. Ms. Perkins replied the reason for not amending the ordinance to allow acreage to be adjusted in and out would be the potential for misuse of the ordinance; for example, if an adjacent property were to swap good land out and poor land in. Commissioner Oates believed that if there is an opportunity to increase the size of the rural preservation tract, it would not be a negative action. Commissioner Thomas commented the revision states any overall increase must be to the rural preservation tract; therefore, if the ordinance is changed to state adjacent properties may be added in, he did not see how that would allow land to be removed. Ms. Perkins suggested the proposed revision could be drafted to state land could be added into the rural preservation tract, but not taken out. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2971 Minutes of May 1, 2013 The Commissioners could not foresee any disadvantage to allowing land to be added into the rural preservation tract. Chairman Wilmot asked the staff why this was before the Commission. Ms. Perkins replied an owner of an undeveloped platted rural preservation subdivision wanted to adjust some of the internal lots; however, due to the language and implementation of the existing ordinance, they were unable to internally modify. No other issues or questions were raised. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Commission’s comments on to the Board of Supervisors. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates and second by Commissioner Crockett, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ June M. Wilmot, Chairman ____________________________ Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2972 Minutes of May l5, 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 May 15, 2013. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and David Smith, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; and Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director-Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Bev Dellinger, Clerk. ----------- CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. ------------- MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the minutes of April 3, 2013 were unanimously approved as presented. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2973 Minutes of May l5, 2013 COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission (EDC) – 5/10/13 Mtg. Commissioner Madagan reported the EDC had two discussion items. He said the staff provided an update on the pro-active marketing efforts over the previous 12 months, which has included the staff attending trade shows, attending conferences for targeted business sectors, and combining those with marketing missions in the conference locality. Commissioner Madagan said the staff has also been conducting email outreach to tenant agents. Going forward, staff plans to do some additional conferences and trade shows on the west coast with the rational that those attending events on the east coast, probably already have a presence on the east coast. Commissioner Madagan stated the second item of business covered was the results of the VIP tours of Valley Health. Once again, the tours were very well received by the attendees and the staff. He noted the staff was pleased with Valley Health’s organization and presentation of the tours. A couple results of note: almost 100% of the attendees would recommend an EDC-VIP business tour to a colleague. When the attendees were surveyed about a business they would like to attend next year, a large percentage indicated they would like to go back to Valley Health because it was so interesting, they wanted to learn more. ------------- Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 5/13/13 Mtg. Commissioner Mohn reported the CPPC had a couple introductory items for future projects at the committee level. He said the CPPC considered two potential long-range planning exercises; one involved the Southern Frederick Area and the other, the Kernstown Area. Commissioner Mohn stated both of these were intended to fill some gaps between where the boundaries of existing long- range plans cover today and to also integrate some of the plans. At the conclusion of the meeting, the committee determined they would move forward with the Southern Frederick Area Plan; therefore, beginning next month, the CPPC will be working with the staff on that project. ------------- City of Winchester Planning Commission – 5/21/13 Upcoming Meeting Commissioner David Smith, the City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the City Planning Commission had a work session on Tuesday, May 14, to go over some preliminary issues; however, the regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2974 Minutes of May l5, 2013 Citizen Comments Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #02-13 of Fairfax Pike/VDOT Lane Commercial, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.61 acres from B1 (Neighborhood Business) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The properties are located on the north side of Fairfax pike (Rt. 277), adjacent to VDOT Lane (Rt. 1018), approximately ½ mile east of I-81 Exit 307. The properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 86-A-14 and 86-A-15 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action – Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the B2 land use proposed in this rezoning is generally consistent with the Route 277 Urban Center Plan and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He said the impacts associated with this request have generally been addressed by the applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered in this rezoning application. With this rezoning, the applicant has proffered to dedicate the necessary right-of-way to enable the Route 277 improvement project to occur and has coordinated the access to this development to further implement the Route 277 Plan. In addition, Mr. Ruddy noted the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $35,000 to assist in other transportation improvements. Commissioner Unger inquired if the entrance at Route 277 will be right-out only. Mr. Ruddy replied yes; he said the entrance proposed on Route 277 is a right-in, right-out only and splits the two properties for access back and forth. Mr. Ruddy said this design will assist with the median treatment proposed for Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). Commissioner Madagan asked if the staff had received any concerns from citizens in the area. Mr. Ruddy replied no. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, reported the applicant spent considerable time working with VDOT and the County’s transportation planner, John Bishop. Mr. Wyatt said Route 277 is a funded project to widen the corridor, although the project is at preliminary stages at this time. He said VDOT encouraged the applicant not to seek a full-access entrance for the internal parcel, even though it would technically be land-locked. Mr. Wyatt said they worked with VDOT to develop a full access option off VDOT Lane which would serve both properties. In return for that, VDOT gave the applicant an exception for the spacing requirement for the right-in, right-out entrance. Mr. Wyatt said the second transportation issue was the relocation of VDOT Lane when widening of Route 277 occurs. Mr. Wyatt noted the applicant wanted to make sure the siding of his entrance was done so that it would not have to be ripped out when the improvement occurred; therefore, the entrance was moved a little further back from the corner clearance requirement. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2975 Minutes of May l5, 2013 Mr. Wyatt next spoke about the monetary proffer. He recognized the County has wanted to move forward from the Renaissance Drive, Phase 1, which was recently completed, to the Phase 2, which gets Renaissance Drive across the railroad tracks to Shady Elm Road. He commented that the applicant/property owner was the local match for the Phase 1 improvements. Mr. Wyatt realized the Phase 2 was a priority project for the County and is the reason it is targeted by the applicant. He suggested the possibility of having the applicant’s monetary proffer available for a local match for a qualifying revenue sharing project; therefore, if for any reason, Renaissance Drive does not materialize, the $35,000 is still available to the County for a local match for another qualifying revenue-sharing project. Mr. Wyatt stated the applicant would be agreeable with amending this section of the proffer before it goes to the Board of Supervisors, if the Planning Commission believes this would be appropriate. Commissioner Madagan inquired if the relocation of VDOT Lane would occur regardless of this rezoning. Mr. Wyatt replied yes. Mr. Wyatt said when VDOT does their widening project, there will be two travel lanes heading east and two travel lanes heading west, with a center median in some instances. Along with that, they want VDOT Lane to come around so it ties into a cross intersection with the entrance into the Food Lion Plaza. Commissioner Unger asked if Mr. Wyatt anticipated this project site developing before Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) is improved. Mr. Wyatt believed they would have the opportunity for one of the two lots to develop. He believed the construction for Fairfax Pike was at least two years away. Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, pointed out that it will probably be 18 months before VDOT begins right-of-way acquisition and there are a considerable number of parcels along that corridor. This process will take at least one year. Mr. Bishop said it will probably be three to four years before construction begins. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this rezoning application. The following person came forward to speak: Mr. Thomas D. Orndorff, an adjoining property owner, wanted to know how this rezoning would impact his property. He also had questions on the scope of the proposed project and why the parcel needed to be rezoned. Mr. Wyatt stated the current zoning of the parcel is B1, which is a neighborhood- commercial district. Mr. Wyatt said this zoning district was created many years ago and is under-utilized; he said land uses along corridors such as this one desire a B2 zoning, which is a general business district. Mr. Wyatt said the B2 zoning would promote the highest and best use of the property based on the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wyatt said the proposed use would be some type of retail or food service or something of that nature. No one else was present to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No other issues were raised by the Commission. Commissioner Madagan made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with the understanding that before going to the Board of Supervisors, the language for the monetary proffered contribution of $35,000 will be amended from being specific to Renaissance Drive to being generalized Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2976 Minutes of May l5, 2013 for a qualifying revenue project anywhere within the County. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #02-13 of Fairfax Pike/VDOT Lane Commercial, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.61 acres from B1 (Neighborhood Business) District to B2 (General Business) District with the understanding that before going to the Board of Supervisors, the language for the monetary proffered contribution of $35,000 will be amended from being specific to Renaissance Drive to being generalized for a qualifying revenue project anywhere within the County. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Mohn, Dunlap, Triplett, Madagan, Oates, Manuel, Ambrogi, Unger, Wilmot NO: Kenney (Note: Commissioners Thomas, Crockett, and Crosen were absent from the meeting.) ------------- Draft Update of the 2013-2014 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Planning Commission of Frederick County, in accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public comment on the proposed Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads for Fiscal Year 2014. Deputy Planning Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, began his presentation with the Interstate Road Improvement Plan, which contains I-81, Frederick County’s only Interstate roadway. Mr. Bishop stated the major upgrades to I-81 sought by the County in the previous several years have still not materialized. He said Priority A continues to be Exit 310, which has received significant funding from the governor in recent years and the project is moving forward; Priority B continues to be the review of the relocation of Exit 307 at Route 277 and has study money in the Six Year Improvement Program; and Priority C and Priority D seek widening along I-81 with the focus between Exit 307 and Exit 310 as a first priority. In addition, the Plan acknowledges that I-81 throughout the County is in need of widening. Progressing to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said there are no major changes from the previous plan and Route 37 continues to be the highest priority in the County. Mr. Bishop described in detail the three planned phases of Route 37 for the Commission. He said Route 277 East of Stephens City is the second priority and has funding; however, the funding addresses a small segment of the full improvements desired. The project scope runs from the interchange at Exit 307 out to Warrior Drive with phasing improvements occurring between. Mr. Bishop next described the third priority, the South Frederick County Parkway, which would eventually connect to a relocated Exit 307. He noted this is a long-range plan and will eventually be a significantly important roadway. He added improvements along Route 11 North are needed, as well as additional capacity for park and ride accommodations. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2977 Minutes of May l5, 2013 Regarding the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop commented that although it is much less dollars than the Interstate and Primary Plans, it receives the most attention in terms of calls received from citizens and for Board members. He said with the recent adoption of the new Transportation Bill, for the first time in a number of years, there was funding to promote some roadways from the un-scheduled hard-surfacing list to the scheduled list. He said this triggered an updating of the rankings of roadways on the list. Mr. Bishop spoke about all of the factors that go into the County’s scoring sheet to decide which roadways are the most deserving of improvements. He explained that this year, however, a new State regulation was incorporated requiring roads on the plan to meet a minimum 200-trip count. Consequently, even though a road scored high on the County’s priority list, staff had to keep moving down the list until they came to one that met the minimum 200-trip count. He said all of the roads promoted have been on the plan for a significant amount of time, they are all deserving, and the staff has questioned this much simpler rating put in place by the State over the ranking system the County has put considerable time and effort into making sure it is a good system for Frederick County. Mr. Bishop proceeded to review the hard-surface road improvement projects. The first project, Woodside Road (Rt. 671), is a small segment and is foreseen to be privately funded through a bond by Titan Concrete. The projects added this year are Warm Springs Road, Woodside Road, Wright Road, Carters Lane, Pack Horse Road, and Laurel Grove Road, are to be implemented over the course of six years. Regarding the Unscheduled List, Mr. Bishop said there are 21 roads with updated ranking. The only exception is Ridings Mill Road, which is one of the roadways previously scheduled, then dropped off the list; however, in the Board’s point of view, it would be one of the first roads to go back on the list from a fairness perspective. Unfortunately, Ridings Mill Road doesn’t meet the 200-trip threshold; it’s the only one of those projects that had previously dropped off the list and was not able to go back on first, as the Board had previously instructed. Mr. Bishop said he included within the Planning Commission’s agenda packet the Board’s adopted ranking system and policy. It gives the Board the authority, if they disagree with how the rankings turn out, to promote whatever road they want. Mr. Bishop said he was going to seek support at the State level for recognition of the fact that Frederick County has a significant and thoughtful process for how it promotes its roads. Mr. Bishop stated this is a public hearing and the staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors. He said the Transportation Committee reviewed the road improvement plans at their meeting on April 22 and has recommended approval. Chairman Wilmot inquired how the new State requirements impact decisions in terms of safety. Mr. Bishop said that when roads with less than 200 trips must be ignored, an argument can be made that a road is being paved that is “less needy” in terms of safety. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding any of the Road Improvement Plans. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the road plans because they were in line with the Comprehensive Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2978 Minutes of May l5, 2013 BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the 2013-2014 update to the Frederick County Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. The Interstate, Primary and Secondary Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the road networks within Frederick County. (Note: Commissioners Crockett, Thomas, and Crosen were absent from the meeting.) ----------- INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS: Discussion of a Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density Table. These proposed revisions would update the TDR density rights table. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that earlier this year, a number of changes were adopted to the RP (Residential Performance) District. One of the major changes was a revision to the maximum density allowed for residential development. Ms. Perkins explained the current Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) density table was based on the previous RP Density table and, therefore, needs to be updated to reflect new requirements. In addition to the ordinance being updated to be consistent with the RP changes, another reason for this change is to ensure the use of the TDR’s remain a beneficial option for future development in lieu of rezoning. Ms. Perkins said the TDR table has been revised to follow the same format as the adopted RP Density table. The changes include: 1) Incorporating the RP density requirements (based on housing types and parcel size); 2) Increasing the RP allowable density when using TDR’s for a development; and 3) Increasing the RA (Rural Areas) permitted maximum density using TDR’s to be consistent with the maximum RP density using TDR’s. Ms. Perkins noted this was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their meeting on April 25, 2013. The DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendment being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. No issues or questions were raised by Commission members and they believed the proposed amendment was ready to be forwarded to the Board for their discussion. ------------- Discussion of a Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, regarding Temporary Family Health Care Structure Additions. This proposed revision would include standards for the inclusion of temporary family health care structures (MEDCottage) as a permitted use. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is an amendment that has been on the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) Work Program for a number years and we are finally drafting the ordinance and moving it forward. Ms. Perkins said it is an amendment to include MedCottages or temporary family health care structures in the Code of Virginia. She said the proposal is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2979 Minutes of May l5, 2013 to allow MedCottage as a permitted use in some of the residential districts, which is a requirement in the Code of Virginia, and would apply to the RA (Rural Areas), RP (Residential Performance), R5 (Residential Recreational), and R4 (Residential Planned Community) Districts in Frederick County. Ms. Perkins stated the Code of Virginia requires localities to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts where single-family detached dwelling units are permitted. She said the staff has drafted a number of supplementary use regulations that regulate the use in the previously-mentioned districts; she added that the supplemental regulations are consistent with the State Code. Ms. Perkins said this was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their meeting on April 25, 2013. She said the DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendment being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion with minor changes to the definition of caregiver (to clarify that outside agencies may provide care for a person residing in a temporary family health care structure). No issues or questions were raised by Commission members and they believed the proposed amendment was ready to be forwarded to the Board for their discussion. ------------- OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 5, 2013 MEETING: Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items or applications for the Commission’s June 5, 2013 meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Manuel, and unanimously passed to cancel the Planning Commission’s June 5, 2013 meeting. ------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Oates and second by Commissioner Madagan, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ June M. Wilmot, Chairman ____________________________ Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary ATTACHMENT 1 1 Chapter 165 – Zoning Part 202 – Off-Street Parking, Loading and Access § 165-202.03. Motor vehicle access. A. New driveways. (1) Private driveways or entrances shall be allowed to provide access to individual residences or uses. Private driveways or entrances shall also be allowed to provide access to parking lots and loading areas shared by a number of residences or uses. (2) In order to provide safe and convenient access and to provide efficient travel on arterial highways, a minimum spacing shall be provided between new driveways onto and entrances onto collector roads, and onto arterial highways, and primary and arterial highways, in the following zoning districts: [Amended 12-10-2008] B1 Neighborhood Business B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition OM Office-Manufacturing Park M1 Light Industrial M2 Industrial General (3) In addition, the minimum spacing requirements shall apply to: (a) any business, industrial or institutional use in any zoning district, or and to (b) any residential development in which more than one dwelling shares a parking lot. (4) Minimum spacing shall also be provided in all zoning districts between (a) new residential driveways onto and commercial entrances onto collector roads, arterial highways, and primary highways and (b) the intersections of other roads with the such collector roads, or arterial highways, and primary highways. Minimum spacing between driveways/ entrances and between driveways/entrances and intersections shall be as follows: Minimum Residential Driveway, Full Commercial Entrance and Intersection Spacing on Primary Highways, and Arterial Highways, and Collector Roads Posted Speed Limit (mph)Road Classification Minimum Required Spacing (feet) 35 or less 150 More than 35 200 Minor Collector 100 ATTACHMENT 1 2 (5) In all cases, the spacing distances shall be measured from the tangent line to the curb return of the driveways or intersecting streets. (6) The minimum spacing for access on minor collector roads shall be 70 feet between driveways and between driveways and intersections. The minimum spacing for business or industrial entrances and road intersections on major collector roads shall be 150 feet. [Amended 9-13-1995] [Deleted] [Note: (6) can be deleted because its contents have been moved to the chart in (4).] (7) Spacing exceptions. New driveways with entrances on arterial or primary highways which do not meet the above spacing requirements shall be allowed only when access meeting the spacing requirements cannot be provided from the arterial highway to the individual property by using one of the following methods: (6) (a) Existing access. When a parcel abuts a minor or collector street that intersects with the arterial or primary highway and when the parcel cannot be provided with an entrance Major Collector – residential driveway/entrance 150 Major Collector – commercial entrances 70 250 Primary or Arterial with posted speed limit 45 mph or less 150 250 Primary or Arterial with posted speed limit more than 45 mph 200 495 ATTACHMENT 1 3 onto the arterial or primary highway that meets the spacing requirement, access to the parcel shall be only from the existing entrance on the minor or collector street and new entrances shall not be allowed directly onto the arterial or primary highway. (7) (b)Shared access. When a lot is created on a collector road or arterial or primary highway, shared means of access to the road or highway shall be created by access easement, shared driveway, shared entrance or other means to ensure that the spacing requirements have been met. [1] When a lot is divided or developed that can be provided with a driveway/entrance meeting the spacing requirements but that is adjacent to other parcels or lots that will not be able to have entrances meeting the spacing requirements, means of highway access to the adjoining property may be required by the Zoning Administrator on the lot to be divided or developed. [2] When a lot is divided or developed that cannot be provided with access meeting the spacing requirements and when means of shared access that meets spacing requirements has been provided on adjoining lots that can be used to provide access to the lot in question, entrances shall not be allowed directly onto the arterial or primary highway from the lot to be divided or developed. [3] When a number of lots are divided or developed that have been included together on an approved master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat, shared driveways/entrances shall be provided as required to meet the spacing requirements. [4] When shared access is provided to meet the requirements of this section, the Zoning Administrator may require that it be provided in the form of an access easement. The Zoning Administrator may require a deed of dedication describing provisions for joint use and maintenance of that easement. Provisions for shared entrance signs may also be required. [5] Shared access easements shall be provided in a manner so that shared driveways are clearly separated from parking areas, loading areas and pedestrian walkways. [6] Shared access easements that follow lot lines are preferred. (8) New lots. No new lot shall be created on an arterial highway any state maintained road unless spacing requirements can be met for driveways/entrances on the lot or unless access is provided through shared or existing access. (9) Number of driveways or entrances. No more than one driveway or entrance shall be allowed per parcel if driveways are allowed which do not unless each driveway/entrance from the parcel separately meets the spacing requirements, ATTACHMENT 1 4 relative to each other and relative to any intersections within the minimum required spacing distance in all directions. The Zoning Administrator may permit entrances/driveways that do not meet the minimum spacing requirements if they are utilized solely for emergency access and are not open the public; such entrances must be gated or chained. (10) Entrances on collector and minor streets. Whenever a parcel abutting an arterial highway also abuts a collector or minor road, in order to obtain an entrance on the arterial road, an entrance must be provided on the collector or minor road. This shall only be required if a safe entrance can be provided on the collector or minor road, meeting all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation. (11) All driveways and entrances onto state-maintained highways must also meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation and all other requirements of the Frederick County Code. (12) New driveways and entrances shall align with existing or planned driveways, crossovers, turn lanes or other access features. This shall only be required if the resulting alignment provides safe access and if all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation are met. (13) The location of new driveways and entrances shall conform with road improvement plans or corridor plans that have been adopted by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation. (14) Private roads providing lot access to multifamily and single-family small lot housing, as permitted in §144-24 of the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The pavement design for the private roads shall include eight inches of aggregate base material, Type I, Size No. 21-B, and shall be paved with a 165 No. psy asphalt concrete, Type SM-2A, surface treatment. In addition, curb and gutters, standard curb CG-6, CG-7 or roll-top curb and sidewalks shall be provided along private roads; however, the Zoning Administrator may approve a waiver of sidewalks on private streets, provided that another recreational amenity is substituted for the sidewalk. Additionally, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for curb and gutters and allow alternate pavement design to accommodate low impact design provided that the private road design is determined to be acceptable by the Director of Public Works. B. Alternative methods. (1) The Zoning Administrator may allow other means of motor vehicle access which do not meet the above requirements. Such means may involve the use of entrances which physically limit or restrict left turns (such as a right-in/right-out only entrance), methods which ensure one-way travel or other methods. (2) In such cases, the Zoning Administrator may require a traffic access plan which describes existing traffic, conditions and design on the streets abutting the site and the methods proposed to ensure that the intent of this section has been met. ATTACHMENT 1 5 (3) Requested alternative methods of motor vehicle access which do not meet the minimum requirements of § 165-202.03 must be approved by VDOT prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator. C. Internal circulation. A complete system of internal traffic circulation shall be provided to serve all uses in any shopping center, industrial park or any development included in a single master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat approved by Frederick County. In such developments, internal access shall be provided in a fashion so that all uses can be mutually accessed without entering onto arterial or primary highways. In such cases, a pattern of internal circulation shall be designed to ensure that conflicts are avoided between moving vehicles, parking areas, pedestrian areas, loading areas and the various uses provided. D. Pedestrian access. Safe pedestrian walkways shall be provided to all uses on land included in a master plan or site plan approved by Frederick County. Sidewalks shall be provided in conformance with adopted corridor or walkway plans or approved master development plans. The Board of Supervisors may require additional sidewalks or walkways on master plans or the Zoning Administrator may require additional sidewalks or walkways on site plans to promote a general system of pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods or business corridors. E. Fire lanes. Fire lanes shall be required as set forth in Chapter 90, Fire Prevention.EN [Added 12- 9-1992] c ATTACHMENT ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.06 Permitted lot sizes. C. Rural preservation lots. (1) Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: (a) Sixty percent or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel (Rural Preservation Tract). (b) This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. (c) No future division of this designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted unless all the following are met: i. The division results in an overall acreage increase to the Rural Preservation Tract; and ii. Acreage added to the preservation tract may come from areas internal or external to the rural preservation subdivision; and iii. Acreage from the preservation tract may not be adjusted into parcels outside of the rural preservation subdivision; and iv. The Rural Preservation Tract continues to meet all requirements of Chapter 165 and 144.