The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 09-07-11 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia September 7, 2011 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB I ) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab) 2) July 6, 2011 Minutes and August 3, 2011 Minutes......................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #08-11 of Smithfield Properties to re-establish a discontinued non -conforming use in order to enable construction of a single family dwelling. The property is located at 417 Frog Hollow Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 22-A-20 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Johnston.................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Reliance Road Area Plan — An amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix 1, to include a new area plan for the Reliance Road area of the County. The Area Plan introduces future commercial and technology land use designations to an area totaling approximately 311 acres. The Area Plan includes provisions for transportation improvements to accorrnnodate the land use designations. At this time, the Area Plan does not include an expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The area is generally east of I-81 and the Town of Middletown, along Reliance Road. Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 1.65 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.26 Public Utilities; Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165-401.05 Minimum Lot Size; and Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, Article V Design Standards, 144-024 Lot Requirements - Revision to minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) FILE COPY 8) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 16S Zoning, Article V1 Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, 165-606.02 Allowed Uses; and Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.12 Motor Vehicle Service Uses and Public Garages Revision to allow Automotive Repair Shops as a permitted use in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and revisions to the regulations for specific uses. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (E) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 9) Ordinance Amendment Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Dart 203 Buffers and Landscaping, 165-203.01 Landscaping Requirements and 165-203.02 Buffer and Screening Requirements — Revision to the landscaping requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (P) 10) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 155 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165-401.02; and Part 402 RP Residential Performance District, 165-402.02 Revision to permitted uses in the RA and RP Zoning Districts. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) 11) Other 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 July 6, 2011. 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; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the June 15, 2011, Planning Commission agenda as presented. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of May 18, 2011 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2772 Minutes of July 6, 2011 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Relzrilations Committee TRRCI — 5/26/11 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that after a lengthy discussion on a revision to the zoning ordinance to include automobile repair shops as a permitted use in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the DRRC decided this change would be appropriate and forwarded their recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Unger said the DRRC also had a lengthy discussion on revisions to the landscaping requirements in the zoning ordinance. He said the DRRC decided to continue with their discussions on this topic, Transportation Committee — 6/13/11 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the Transportation Committee discussed six items: 1) Speed Reduction on Refuge Church Road — voted to review the request next month after VDOT provides input on accident data; 2) Interstate and Primary Road Improvement Plan — voted to approve with minor text edits; 3) Traffic Calming Measures in Canter Estates — voted to revisit this item after some nearly - completed road improvements have been finished and VDOT data becomes available; 4 and 5) MPO's Planning Work Program and Long -Range Plan — voted in support of both of these plans; 6) Discussion of crosswalks around the Greenwood Mill Elementary School — VDOT and Deputy Director - Transportation, John A. Bishop are studying the matter and will report back to the committee next month. Comprehensive Plans & Pro rams Committee CPPC — 6/13/11 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the CPPC had only one addendum to the 2011 Comprehensive Policy Plan and subsequently moved the plan forward. 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 comment portion of the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2773 Minutes of July 6, 2011 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #06-11 of Horton's Nursery for a retail nursery at 2731 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South). The properties are identified with P.LN.s 76-A-61, 76-A-62, 76A-63, 76-A-64, and 76-A-65 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this retail nursery is located on Parcel 76-A-62, a 5.57+ acre tract of land, approved as Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #06-06 by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2006. Mr. Cheran said this property was cited with a zoning violation for expanding its use beyond the limits set forth by CUP #06-06. He said the new CUP application (CUP #06-11) is intended to resolve the zoning violation. Mr. Cheran reported that the use currently has 18,400 square feet of showroom and 18,900 square feet of greenhouse area. There is also a nursery stock area behind the greenhouse structure, extending to the rear of the property. The new CUP will encompass five parcels and will be 11.07+ acres in size. Mr. Cheran stated it appears this proposed CUP meets the intent of the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and he read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the expansion to be appropriate. Commissioner Oates noticed there were two separate parcels with the same tax map number; he inquired if the two parcels were connected or if this was a typographical error. Commissioner Oates suggested that one be identified as Tract A and one as Tract B so there is no confusion. Commissioner Thomas referred to Condition #7 which stipulates any expansion of the use will require a new CUP. Commissioner Thomas said considering this new application, ]low would it be determined if there is an expansion of use or intensity in the future. Mr. Cheran replied that if this CUP is approved, the properties will be consolidated and any proposed sheds or greenhouses will need to be shown on the engineered site plan. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about approving the CUP without seeing the details of the site plan. He added this is a significant increase from five acres to eleven acres plus and the Commission is not seeing what is going to happen on the additional five acres. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the aerial on the screen is about one year old and is generally consistent with the current intensity of use on the property. Mr. Lawrence said currently, there are violations on the property and this CUP is to bring the property into conformance. He said when the site plan is submitted, it should capture what is essentially seen on the aerial. Mr. Lawrence noted the two northern parcels with no structures or activity; he said this could be clarified for the record that the Commission is not enabling the applicant to use those parcels. Commissioner Thomas said he raised the question because the conditions state any storage of heavy equipment shall take place inside an enclosed structure; he said if the owner brings heavy equipment on the property, a structure will have to be erected to house those. Commissioner Mohn observed that it may not be appropriate to include the vacant parcels which are not currently in use with the nursery in this CUP. Commissioner Unger agreed. Commissioner Oates observed three dwellings on this site and he asked if those would have to be vacated when the parcels are consolidated for the site plan. Mr. Cheran replied there was one occupied residence. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2774 Minutes of July 6, 2011 ME Chairman Wilmot clarified with the staff that Parcel 76-A-62 is the original parcel; Parcel 76-A-61 has a violation; the lower portion of Parcel 76-A-65 has activity; the upper portion of Parcel 65 and Parcels 63 and 64 have no activity. Mr. Jim Horton, the owner and applicant, came forward to respond to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Manuel asked him if he was comfortable with Condition 45 which limited the number of employees through various months of the year. Mr. Horton said he was comfortable with all the condition as stated; he said the number of employees fluctuates throughout the year. Mr. Horton referred to the parcels discussed by the Commission. He explained the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the new parcels, what he is currently storing on some of the parcels, and what his intentions were for the future use of the properties. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Mohn said he had no problems with the proposed use or the application. Commissioner Mohn said it may be beneficial to amend the sketch to clarify the boundaries of the use and the activity taking place on the northern parcels in order to get a better understanding about how the site is intended to be used under the CUP. Commissioner Unger also commented that he had no problems with the expansion, but his biggest concern was that heavy equipment or buildings should not placed next to adjoining residential neighbors in a manner that would negatively affect their property values or the appearance of their homes. Commissioner Manuel made a motion to approve the CUP with the conditions recommended by the staff and with the understanding that some of the parcel delineations will be clarified. 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 Conditional Use Permit #06-11 of Horton's Nursery for a retail nursery at 2731 Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) with the understanding that parcel delineations will need to be clarified and with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County and all improvements are to be completed within six months of approval of this CUP. 3. One non -illuminated, free-standing business sign shall be allowed with this CUP. This sign shall not exceed 25 square feet or ten feet in height. 4. Any storage of heavy equipment shall take place within an enclosed structure. 5. Eighteen employees are permitted between the months of April -June, while the remainder of the time, the site shall have no more than six employees. 6. Approval of this CUP will void CUP #06-06. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new CUP. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2775 Minutes of July 6, 2011 -5 - (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #07-11 of Starlite Companies, LLC D/B/A Homespun for a country store with restaurant at 949 Cedar Creek Grade. This property is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -2H in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this property was approved for a country general store through Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 415-01 in 2001. Mr. Cheran said the country store is operating within a two-story, eight -room stone and log structure consisting of 2,448 square feet. He said the applicant is requesting to expand this country store to allow a 26 -seat restaurant and a photo gallery. The photo gallery will initially be located on the second floor of the structure and will ultimately be relocated to an accessory structure in the future. He added the applicants have expressed their desire to maintain the historic integrity of the structure and property. Mr. Cheran next read a list of proposed conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Commissioner Crosen asked about the approval of the original CUP; he inquired if the conditions prohibiting petroleum sales or restaurant use had to do with traffic concerns. Mr. Cheran replied that when the initial CUP was approved, it was mainly for a historical -type country store. Commissioner Crosen supported the proposed new use and concept, but he did have safety concerns about vehicular access and poor site distance. Commissioner Thomas referred to Condition #8 and he asked how the maximum number of seats for the restaurant was determined. Mr. Cheran replied it was based on the number of available parking spaces. Mr. Michael (Nick) Mallon, the co -applicant and owner, said they are seeking to run a tea room, not a bar or restaurant. He said the 26 seats were primarily a function of existing parking spaces, including the disability spaces that currently exist as part of the previous use as a gift store and gardens. Mr. Mallon said they do not envision seating more customers in any one sitting or on any one particular day. He said they do intend to provide a service that is not currently in existence in this area. Mr. Mallon said this is a part of a large, on-going industry that is moving throughout the United States and they feel it will work well in this area for families and professionals, and they anticipate the business will do well. Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant if he had any problems with any of the conditions and if he understood all of the conditions. Mr. Mallon replied they understood the conditions and had no problems with any of the conditions. Commissioner Manuel asked if the retail portion of the previous use would continue or if this will be strictly a tea room. Mr. Mallon stated the previous owners had a large number of local crafters and artisans who consigned their goods and he intends to continue to offer that ability to them. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2776 Minutes of July 6, 2011 W:C Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Kriz next made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 407-11 of Starlite Companies, LLC D/B/A Homespun, for a country store with restaurant at 949 Cedar Creek Grade, with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered minor site plan shall be required for the future accessory structure. 3. Maximum height of a freestanding sign shall be six feet. 4. Maximum size of a freestanding sign shall be 25 square feet. 5. No internally illuminated signs shall be allowed outside of the building. 6. Maximum size of a building -mounted sign shall be ten square feet. 7. Dumpsters shall be completely enclosed by an opaque fence with a minimum setback of 15 feet from the property line. 8. No more than 26 seats shall be allowed for this restaurant use. 9. Parking shall only be permitted behind the structure. 10. No petroleum sales shall be allowed. 11. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Frederick County Public Schools Transportation Facility. Review of site plan for new transportation facility to be constructed adjacent to Armel Elementary School in the Shawnee Magisterial District. No Action Required Frederick County Planning Commission rage z i Y Minutes of July 6, 2011 -7 - Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this is a site plan review for the new Frederick County Transportation Facility. Ms. Perkins explained that the staff brings projects involving public facilities to the Planning Commission for review prior to site plan approval. She noted the new facility will be located off of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 South) behind the existing Armel Elementary School. She said the site improvements include: administration building, maintenance building, and wash building; school bus parking area and future bus parking expansion areas; summer school bus storage area; and vehicle parking area and future parking expansion areas. Commissioner Unger commented that a large portion of the property contained trees; he asked how much of the trees were going to be removed. Commissioner Thomas had comments concerning traffic safety issues. He noted that the size of the site was impressive with over 200 bus parking spaces. He said that in less than a mile, on a major collector road, there are three existing traffic signals: at Macedonia Church Road, at Tasker and Route 522, and at the entrance to Wahnart and Route 522. He explained that the entrance to Armel School is about 1,000 feet passed Macedonia Church Road, where there is a traffic signal. He believed something was needed at the Armel School. He commented he was surprised there hasn't been a traffic accident involving a school bus because the bus drivers pull out of the school and then stop in the middle of the four -lane road while they're trying to turn south on Route 522 across the median break in the road. Commissioner Thomas said if the bus facility is going in, the break in the road needs to be closed. He said there is also a problem with buses turning south because of the south -bound traffic coming up over the hill—the crossover is directly at the top of the hill and vehicles cannot see it at the bottom of the hill. He explained that vehicles come up over the hill, pop up, and all of a sudden there's a school bus in the middle of the road. He said coming north has the same problem with school buses stopped at the north- bound side of Route 522. Commissioner Thomas said that these transportation issues need to be examined and something needs to be done. Commissioner Mohn had comments concerning water quality issues. He asked what type of B&P measures were being considered for the site, such as oil and water separators, or any other measures that may be put in place from a water quality perspective, given the parking of buses, etc. Mr. Wayne Lee, with Frederick County Public Schools, referred to Commissioner Unger's question regarding removal of trees. Mr. Lee said between 80-200 feet of trees will remain undisturbed along the property boundaries. Regarding the traffic safety issues, Mr. Lee said they completely agree with Commissioner Thomas' comments about safety at that intersection. He said they have lobbied VDOT as strongly as possible to have a signal there and they are waiting on a re-evaluation from VDOT, but he is not optimistic because there are already two new signals on Route 522. Mr. Lee said the Schools' Transportation Department is very familiar with the situation and the existing signals will manage the traffic coming from the south, but they will not manage the traffic coming from the north. He said they also have concerns about buses pulling into the crossover waiting to turn left because it will actually shut down the left turn lane in until the bus is clear. Mr. Lee said they will do their best to work with VDOT and get a signal installed. Chairman Wilmot inquired if there may be the potential to obtain property from the adjoining owner to the south to gain access to the Macedonia Church Road signal. Mr. Lee said they have not talked with the adjoining owner about bringing a road across their property. Mr. Lee said he had spoken with them about accessing the transportation facility, but the adjoining property owner was not willing to work with them. Mr. Lee said they could approach the owners again on the matter. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2778 Minutes of July b, 2011 ME Mr. Randy Jones, with OWPR, Architects and Engineers, addressed the water quality issues. Mr. Jones stated that from the edge of the new parking lot, the closest deforestation will still provide a minimum 70 -foot buffer to the adiacent property line; the other locations will have about 200 feet of existing vegetation. He said there is quite a bit of undisturbed area. Regarding the water quality issues, Mr. Jones said there will be a substantial number of rain gardens, which will filter the water as it is being drained off the site. He said oil -water separators and filters will also be incorporated into the plans. In addition, all State requirements for water quality will have to be met. Mr. Jones said they have met extensively with the Frederick County staff to make sure all of those needs have been addressed. In addition, this project has a LEED component to it, which is a green building, and they are striving to receive basic certification. Commissioner Lemieux inquired if there were any concerns about the concentration levels of CO2 laying down in that valley, considering the site's elevation, and if there was any way to monitor CO2 levels. Mr. Jones said the question had not previously been raised, but certainly is a valid concern and was something he could take to his civil engineers and try to obtain additional information. Mr. Steve Kapocsi, with Frederick County Public Schools, said as they continue to work with VDOT on the traffic signal and safety issues, he wanted to clarify that the number of buses that leave the facility each morning will not be 200, but will be substantially less, most likely 50 in the morning and 50 in the evening. In addition, those buses will be staggered due to school starting times. He said they will also continue to use satellite parking throughout the school division to save mileage and things of that nature. Mr. Kapocsi said they need to have the "potential" to park 200 vehicles because of maintenance service and summer parking. Commissioner Thomas suggested reducing the amount of asphalt paving on the site, in light of the LEED certification by utilizing a porous surface, similar to what is going to be used for the summer parking areas. Commissioner Thomas said if 200 asphalt parking spaces are not needed, don't build them. Commissioner Lemieux asked if the facility will be used to service County department vehicles and Mr. Kapocsi replied yes. Commissioner Unger said he wanted to go on record stating this would be a great facility, but he had concerns about the traffic safety issues. He could not see how the entrance location could function safely, especially crossing Route 522 to go south, with numerous buses pulling out. Commissioner Manual believed VDOT was premature with the Macedonia Church Road traffic signal and he would rather have the traffic signal at the entrance to the school. He said there have been instances in the past where adjustments to traffic lights were made; for example, the Gander Mountain traffic light versus the H.P. Hood traffic light. He said VDOT can make adjustments. Commissioner Crosen asked if there could be a flagman posted on the road when school buses are leaving or entering the site. Mr. Kapocsi stated there will be flashing lights and reduced speed signs before and after the entrance to the site. This concluded the comments and discussion by the Planning Commission. Ms. Perkins said she would continue to work with the applicant on the issues raised and she would forward the Commission's comments to VDOT. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 6, 2011 WE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment #01-11 of 'Tasker Road, Parcel 86. This request is an 11.35 -acre change in the Land Use Classification from Institutional to Residential. The property is located on the east side of Tasker Road and north of Rutherford Lane, approximately 0.7 miles south of I-81, at the Exit 310 Interchange, in the Shawnee Magisterial District. No Action Required Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the Planning Department received only one Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPPA) request by this year's June 1, 2011, deadline, which is CPPA #01-11 of Tasker Road, Parcel 86. Mr. Ruddy oriented the Commission on the location of the property. He said the applicant is requesting this property be designated with residential land use as opposed to the existing institutional land use. He said the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) reviewed this requires at their June 13, 2011 meeting and recommended the request be incorporated into the Eastern Frederick County-Senseny Road Land Use Study by way of an adjustment in the study boundary to pick up this property. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant heard this recommendation, but the applicant would prefer to proceed with their request independent of the study because they were concerned about the time frame involved with the study. Mr. Ruddy believed it would be appropriate to recognize this applicant's request that this particular Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment proceed independently of that upcoming area plan. Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was representing the applicant in this CPPA request. Mr. Mislowsky stated that the owner does not wish to do an institutional use on the property because the adjoining areas are residential, and considering the slope of the property, it would probably not be conducive to commercial use. He said residential seems to be the best use for this property. He pointed out that Rutherford Lane is just east of the site and would provide the entrance. Mr. Mislowsky stated as this request moves forward through the process, all the transportation and use issues will be evaluated. He said they are simply requesting to revise the use from having a portion of the site institutional to having the entire site be residential, because it reflects what is out there now. Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Mislowski if he was thinking townhouses, condominiums, or single-family dwellings. Mr. Mislowsky said there is no idea right now what would be on the site; he said they just know they do not want an institutional use, nor do they want commercial use. Commissioner Oates remarked that since there is no idea what is going to be on the site, why not include this in the future study. Mr. Mislowsky responded that in reflecting on what has happened with past studies, the applicant has already paid a fee for the CPPA and they did not think it was quite fair to be wrapped up into all of the subcommittee meetings and public comment meetings and issues that go along with a much larger study. Mr. Mislowsky said they believe since they submitted an application fee for the CPPA process, they felt they should be handled separately and instead of taking seven or eight months, or possibly longer, they could be done in four to five months, and if something happens, they will be ready to react. He remarked that the applicant is not asking to be treated differently than any other CPPA application accepted in the past. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2780 Minutes of July 6, 2011 -10 - Commissioner Thomas noted that the whole property is zoned RA (Rural Areas), but the Comprehensive Policy Plan has a designation on the northern part of the parcel for institutional. Commissioner Thomas asked for confirmation from the applicant that they wanted the institutional use to be removed and for it to be designated residential. Commissioner Thomas asked if the applicant was seeking RP Zoning. Mr. Mislowski confinned the applicant wanted the use to be residential; he said the property is zoned RA and RP Zoning would require them to submit a rezoning application. Commissioner Manuel asked Mr. Mislowski if he discovered any historical information on how that portion of the property came to be designated for institutional. Mr. Mislowsky surmised it was probably because Agape Church had future plans for expansion Commissioner Unger inquired how much of the property was usable; he thought a creek ran through the property. Mr. Mislowski replied the creek runs along the eastern edge of the property, possibly on the other side of Rutherford Drive. Mr. Ruddy used an aerial to point out where Opequon Creek follows the property line on the east side of the Rutherford property. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the applicant would apply for a CPPA to change this designation. Mr. Mislowski stated that if the applicant comes in with a rezoning application, they want to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said they do not want the staff to make a comment that the first step would be a CPPA amendment, which has happened to them on a previous occasion. Commissioner Mohn said from a procedural standpoint, he didn't have a problem with this proceeding on its own, separate from the larger study. Commissioner Mohn said he might have felt a little differently, if this property was positioned more centrally to the study area; however, it is a small - focused area, located somewhat on the fringe. He believed it could be dealt with, as long as it joined up with the larger study. Commissioner Oates agreed with Commissioner Mohn. No other issues were raised or comments made. Discussion of a proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, Section 165-606.02, Allowed Uses; and Article II, Supplementary use Regulations, Parking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Section 165-204.12, Motor Vehicle Service Uses and Public Garages. This revision will allow automotive repair shops as a permitted use in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and will amend the regulations for specific uses. No Action Required Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the staff has received numerous requests to permit automobile repair shops in the Ml (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said automobile repair is currently permitted in the 133 (Industrial Transition) and the M2 (Industrial General)) Zoning Districts. She said the staff has drafted an ordinance amendment that would permit SIC 752 as a Frederick County Planning Commission rage /- 10 Minutes of July 6, 2011 permitted use in the M1 Zoning District along with additional supplemental use regulations. She next read a list of the types of automotive repair shops that would be permitted. Ms. Perkins said this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on May 26, 2011, and they endorsed the amendment and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Chairman Wilmot asked if the review process sent this proposed code amendment to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) so they could make comments. Chairman Wilmot believed this proposed amendment needed to have comments from the EDC. Commissioner Thomas inquired if comments were received from the industrial park folks, who would have the M 1 land, as to whether they agree or disagree. Ms. Perkins said that no outside agencies were contacted for comments, other than committee members from the DRRC. Ms. Perkins said she would be able to get those comments before this goes to the Board of Supervisors. No other issues were raised or comments made. OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE JULY 20, 2011 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no action items for the July 20, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Commission unanimously voted to cancel the meeting. CPEAV ZONING CONFERENCE Chairman Wilmot announced that a zoning conference, sponsored by the CPEAV, is scheduled for July 18, 2011, in Richmond, and one of the topics for discussion is civility and related matters. Chairman Wilmot stated that if any Commissioners are interested in attending, please contact the Planning Staff. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2782 Minutes of July 6, 2011 ADdQUI2NM-ENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2783 Minutes of July 6, 2011 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 August 3, 2011. 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; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; and Bill Wiley, City of Winchester Planning Commission Liaison. .ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot announced an addition to this evening's agenda, which would be Item #8, Tab E, discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment concerning lot sizes and setback requirements for public utilities. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the August 3, 2011, Planning Commission agenda with the additional item as noted. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of June 15, 2011 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2754 Minutes of August 3, 2011 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Trarspo; tation Committee — 7/2/11 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the ira:nsportatlon committee discussed four items: 1) Discussion of speeding concerns on Back Mountain Road; 2) Recommended approval of a resolution for improvements to Route 277; 3) Discussion of the MPO's Long -Range Plan Update; and 4) Recommended the staff pursue acquiring Tiger Grant money. Sanitation Authority — 7/19/11 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported water usage of 2.5mgd from the Diehl Plant; 2.4mgd from the Anderson Plant; and,71-ugd purchased from the City of Winchester; the daily average use is 5.7mgd. Commissioner Unger reported that Frederick County is filing a violation against Stephens City for the continuing problem of rags obstructing the sewer lines. The Authority has begun the process of searching for leaks in the water lines and they are working to correct those problems. In addition, a construction company hit and ruptured a fire plug and an estimated 4.5mg of water was lost_ Work is being done to place covers on the tanks at the Parkins Mill Plant in an attempt to eliminate odor problems. Development Review & Regulations Committee DRRC — 07/28/11 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRC discussed four items: 1) Continued with discussions on revising landscaping requirements; 2) Discussion on revisions to the riparian buffer requirements; 3) Discussion on revisions to the lot size and setback requirements for lots created for public utilities; and 4) Discussion on use additions to the RA and RP Zoning Districts. City of Winchester Planning Commission Mr, Bill Wiley, City of Winchester Planning Commissioner, reported that the Planning Commission for the City of Winchester adopted a resolution supporting the recommendation for a Millwood Avenue Traffic Diversion Study and forwarded the resolution on to Council. He said the motion passed three -to -two. Frederick County Planning Coirnnission Page 2785 Minutes of August 3, 2011 -3 - CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chainnan Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT UPDATE OF THE 2012-201.7 PRIMARY & INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR FREDERICK COUNTY. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the primary and interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Frederick County Transportation Committee endorsed the Primary and the Interstate Road Improvement Plans at their meeting on June 13, 2011. Mr. Ruddy began by reviewing the key priorities of each of the plans. He said the Interstate Road Improvement Plan highlights five major priorities, including: 1) Improvements to Interchange 310 at Kernstown; 2) Relocation of the Stephens City interchange, Exit 307, further south; 3) Widening of 1-81 from Fairfax Pike to Route 37 North; 4) Widening the remainder of 1-81 through Frederick County; and 5) Spot improvements on 1-81 at various interchanges to increase capacity and/or enhance safety. Mr. Ruddy reported that the Primary Road Improvement Plan is similar to previous years with the Route 37 Bypass, in three phases, being the top priority: Phase I would be from I-81 South over to Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522 So.); Phase II would be from Route 37 in the north around Stonewall Industrial Park around to Route 7; and Phase III would be from Route 7 all the way down to Route 522 South. Mr. Ruddy said the second priority of the Primary Road Improvement Plan is Route 277, East of Stephens City, in two phases; the third priority includes the Route 11 project, both north and south of Winchester, and the fourth priority is the South Frederick County Parkway in the area around Route 277. He said the fifth priority is the long-standing desire to have commuter park and ride lots within the primary road improvement areas. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett to recommend approval of the update of the Interstate and Primary Road Improvement Plans to the Board of Supervisors. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Draft Update of the 2012-2017 Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans for Frederick County. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for Frederick County Planning Commission ®Page 2786 Minutes of August 3, 2011 improvements to the primary and interstate road networks within Frederick County. The priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. rnT„+P: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning Application 901-11 of Carmeuse NA (North America)—Clearbrook, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, to rezone 92 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike, and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836). These properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 44-A-83, 44 -A -83A, and 33-A-144 (portion of). Action — Recommended Approval AND Request of Carmeuse NA (North America) -Clearbrook, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, for a waiver from the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts. The requested waiver concerns Part 608, Extractive Manufacturing (EM) District, Section 165-608.05 Setback and Ward Requirements, particularly Sections 165-608,05(A)(2), 165-608.05(B)(1), and 165-608.05(B)(2), to allow the setback requirement to be reduced from 200 feet to 50 feet. The properties, with addresses of 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike, and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, are located between the intersections of Route 11 with Brucetown Road (Route 672) and Walters Mill Lane (Route 836). The properties are further identified with P.LN.s 44-A-83, 44 -A -83A, and 33-A-144 (portion of). Action —Approved Commissioner Crockett said he would recluse himself from all discussion and voting on both the rezoning and the waiver because lie is a member of the Sanitation Authority Board, which could present a conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the Planning Commission will be discussing both the rezoning and the waiver at the same time, although the waiver requires only Planning Commission approval and does not require Board of Supervisors' action. Mr. Ruddy stated that the Planning Commission tabled both the rezoning and the waiver request for 45 days at their meeting on June 15, 2011, to allow the applicant time to address the issues identified by the Planning Commission and to revise their proffers. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2787 Minutes of August 3, 2011 -5 - Mr. Ruddy stated that the Planning Commission had identified several issues at their meeting on June 15, 2011, as follows: 1) Right-of-way for the planned expansion of Route 1 I consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan; 2) Acreage for a future Fire and Rescue facility consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan; 3) Access to water for future citizens of Frederick County; 4) Primary access of mining operation to Route 11 as opposed to Brucetown Road; and 5) Close proximity of the excavation pit to adjoining residential properties. Mr. Ruddy stated that the applicant has provided a revised proffers statement, dated July 12, 2011, which includes: 1) The provision for the dedication of 20 feet across the property whenever a demand is made for the same by Frederick County or VDOT for the planned expansion of Route 11. Mr. Ruddy doted that the dedication would be from within the proposed 50 -foot setback, potentially reducing the buffer along Route 11 to 30 feet. 2) The provision for an entrance on Route 11, provided the entrance is approved by Frederick County or VDOT. Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, P.C., with the law firm of Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., was representing Carmeuse Lime & Stone and came forward to review the revisions to the applicant's proffers. Mr. Lawson said they do not intend to provide an entrance on Route 11 because VDOT was clear they do not want additional entrances on Route 1 l . Mr. Lawson said language was added to provide flexibility, if there is some agreement between the county and VDOT in the future. Regarding additional right-of-way for the potential future widening of Route 11, Mr. Lawson said they have allowed for 20 feet within their existing buffer to be dedicated upon demand. He pointed out the trees will still be provided, but not on the 20 -feet that may be dedicated and the trees adjacent to the residences will remain. Mr. Lawson said the berm is the same as previously indicated and language was also added to maintain the existing vegetation. Mr. Lawson noted that the berm with landscaping is very effective in controlling noise as opposed to a distance buffer alone. Mr. Lawson spoke about the extensive efforts to meet their neighbors to determine and resolve issues. Commissioner Kriz asked the applicant how many years it would be before mining takes place next to the residential properties. Mr. Lawson said at this point, they don't know; he said everything is market-driven and activity has been slow in the last couple years. Mr. Lawson said there is no immediate plan and it will be well into the future. However, Mr. Lawson said they did agree, after meeting with the neighbors, to go ahead and plant the trees within a year so the trees would have an opportunity to mature before the operation begins. Chairman Wilmot announced that a public hearing was held for this rezoning application at the June 15, 2011 meeting; however, she invited anyone from the audience who wished to speak further to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates said he was not so mach opposed to the rezoning as he was against the waiver request. He stated he had conversations with a couple of the neighbors who live across from the Stonewall School. They were not opposed to the rezoning, but they did have concerns with the reduced buffer; they preferred to have the original 200 feet and plant their own trees. Commissioner Oates said he was concerned about the quarry pit wall coming to within 50 -feet of residential properties and he thought a 30 -foot buffer along Route ll was insufficient. Commissioner Oates was also concerned there had not been an offer by the applicant in recognition of the fire and rescue facility. Regarding a guarantee for future water supply, Commissioner Oates said he was not greatly worried about this issue because the County could always claim imminent domain. Regarding the entrance on Route 11, Commissioner Oates said he wasn't looking for flexibility, he was looking for that proffer to be removed Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2788 Minutes of August 3, 2011 Q. entirely. He said he would like to see the quarry trucks come out either around the fairgrounds, with the possibility of a shared signal with the fairgrounds, or Walters Mill Lane to the south, because the concrete plant already uses that access and a considerable amount of money has been spent for improvements there. He preferred not to have trucks using Brucetown Road. Commissioner Unger concurred with Commissioner Oates in saying the dedication of right-of-way for Route 11 was insufficient; he was also opposed to an excavation pit within 50 -feet of someone's residence. Chairman Wilmot noted the applicant had identified other uses in extractive manufacturing and proffered one of the uses out; however, it still leaves a selection of other uses that would be allowed. She stated that if the applicant does not use Route 11 for truck traffic, then the current traffic volume on Brucetown Road needs to remain the same. Chairman Wilmot said there needs to be a limit on the number of trucks because other future permitted uses could increase the volume. Commissioner Triplett said he heard that it's possible that the quarry would work with Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company, without the County being involved, for some property. Commissioner Triplett asked if anyone else had heard that. The President of the Board of Directors of the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company, Lloyd Winters, said the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company and the quant' owners have come to a mutual agreement regarding a land exchange at a future date. Commissioner Oates asked if Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company had the agreement in writing and Mr. Winters said yes. Commissioner Oates asked if this contract could be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lawson interjected that this agreement is between two private property owners. Commissioner Oates said a new fire and rescue facility is, nevertheless, on the County's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and if the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Department is not interested in being on the plan, they should indicate such. Mr. Winters said although they are not anticipating anything happening in the near future regarding the CIP, they would prefer to remain on that list, along with keeping their agreement with the quarry owners, to see how things work out in the future. Commissioner Madagan asked Mr. Winters if he was comfortable with the agreement they have with the quarry owners and Mr. Winters replied yes. Commissioner Mohn commented that the value of being on the CIP is not purely about the property and trying to get a new site, but it also legitimizes public proffer funds being directed towards that fire company. Commissioner Mohn said whether or not an agreement is made between the two parties does not mean they should or should not be on the CIP. He believed the fire company should be on the CIP because they are providing a public service and should be able to benefit from any proffer funds that are collected. Commissioner Mohn said in his opinion, the mutual agreement between the fire company and the quarry is a private agreement; it doesn't mean the county should back off expecting proffer commitments from other applications that would go towards supporting this fire company. Chairman Wilmot asked if the County Attorney had seen the latest edition of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Ruddy replied that the County Attorney has reviewed both the July 12, 2011 edition and the signed version; however, he has not seen Exhibit 2, which was handed out to the Commission this evening. Mr. Ruddy said Exhibit 2 is part of the proffer package which depicts the changes Mr. Lawson referred to showing the buffer and trees. Mr. Ruddy added that prior to Exhibit 2 received today, Mr. Williams did not have any issues with the legality of the proffer statement. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2789 Minutes of August 3, 2011 Mr. Lawson returned to the podium for some final comments. Mr. Lawson thought it was important to note that the Commission has not heard any complaints, issues, or concerns from the neighbors. He believed this was a testament to the efforts of the applicant to meet and work with the neighbors. He also believed it demonstrated that the quality of the berms and landscaping proposed was more than sufficient to provide a comfort level to the neighbors about any noise they would experience. He said the fact that the neighbors have not come rr. and objected speaks volumes. Mr. Lawson next spoke about the waiver request. He said they have demonstrated that if the right-of-way needs to be expanded, there will be an extensive buffer in terms of footage and quality. He pointed out that the expansion of the Route I 1 right-of-way does not mean there will be asphalt all the way over to include that 20 feet; he said there will be ditching, drainage, and landscaping. With regard to the fire and rescue company, he said the CIP contains a provision for land for the fire and rescue facility and that is what the applicants have done. He said they are working with the service provider that has been in this area for many years. With regard to access to future water supply, the applicant has an agreement with the Sanitation Authority; he said the applicant has abided by that agreement in the past and will continue to abide by that agreement in the future. With regard to several of the Commissioners desire to have an entrance on Route 11, Mr. Lawson stated this is contrary to what they've heard from VDOT and as a result, they will remain with their existing entrance. However, a provision is available and if some future body wants to approve an entrance on Route 11, the opportunity is there. Regarding the number of truck trips on Brucetown Road, Mr. Lawson stated that at the scoping session with VDOT, it was agreed the applicant didn't need to do the typical traffic impact study because this is a continuation of an existing operation including all by -right uses. He said this rezoning is about 92 acres and they have 1,000 acres of EM land; he said by -right uses have been proffered out of the 92 acres. He said they will be doing the same level of excavation, but only in a different place. Commissioner Oates said if all the neighbors are on board with this reduced buffer, then he could go along with it; however, the neighbors that contacted him were not present this evening.. They were concerned about how close the excavation would come to their property and they would much rather keep distance at 200 feet. Commissioner Oates said he had a lot of concern over having a quarry wall within 30 feet of the right-of-way of Route 11. Commissioner Oates made a motion to deny the waiver and this motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger. The motion failed, however, by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY WAIVER): Lemieux, Kriz, Oates, Unger NO: Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Wilmot, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen ABSTAIN: Crockett (Note: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2790 Minutes of August 3, 2011 ME A new motion was made by Commissioner Mohn to approve the waiver request for the modified buffer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE WAIVER): Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Wilmot, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen NO: Lemieux, Kriz, Oates, Unger ABSTAIN: Crockett (Note: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) Commissioner Oates next made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with an additional recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that they work to resolve the issue with the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL OF REZONING): Mohn, Lemieux, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Wilmot, Oates, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen NO: Unger ABSTAIN: Crockett (Note: Commissioner Thomas was absent from the meeting.) BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #01-11 of Carmeuse NA (North America) -Clearbrook, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, to rezone 92 acres, located at 508 Quarry Lane, 3004 Martinsburg Pike, and 3180 Martinsburg Pike, from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers and with the additional recommendation that the Board of Supervisors work to resolve the issue with the Clearbrook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING LOT SIZES AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) discussed this proposed ordinance amendment at their meeting on July 28, 2011. Mr. Lawrence said the DRRC endorsed the amendment with minor changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Mr. Lawrence stated the request is to establish an opportunity for the zoning administrator to work with an applicant for public utility sites to determine the appropriate lot size, as well as the setback. He said the draft ordinance limits this to political subdivisions, municipal Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2791 Minutes of August 3, 2011 mom corporations, VDOT, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, or the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Mr. Lawrence noted that the lots would be exempt from the individual on-site sewage disposal system requirements and they would have a minimum access of 15 feet. Commissioner Unger asked if there were pump stations throughout the county that were not legal. Mr. Lawrence replied that almost always, infrastructure for public utilities is occurring within our development areas and is identified on master plans and subdivision design plans. He explained that through that process, the Board of Supervisors is seeing and endorsing those and, therefore, it is an inherently -approved lot. However, there have been occasions where the staff will be working on something the Board is not involved in because they would not be reviewing the master plan or the subdivision design plan. For example, if the FCSA is trying to upgrade a system, or VDOT is doing a road improvement, this is not necessarily a Board review. Mr. Lawrence said this is where the staff has run into a limitation. He said this ordinance amendment would capture those few instances that occur. No other questions or issues were raised. Mr. Lawrence said this proposed amendment will go to the Board of Supervisors for discussion on September 14, 2011. CANCELLATION OF THE COMMISSION'S AUGUST 17, 2011 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Commission's August 17, 2011 meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan, the meeting of August 17, 2011 was canceled by a unanimous vote. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and second by Commissioner Manuel, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page. 2792 Minutes of August 3, 2011 • • C cX , cQ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #08-11 t SMITHFIELD PROPERTIES Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 22, 2011 Y„M Staff Contact: Dana 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 Action Planning Commission: 09/07/11 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/28/11 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 417 Frog Hollow Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 22-A-20 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Area) East: RA (Rural Area) West: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential Land Use- Vacant Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This is a request to re-establish a discontinued nonconforming use in order to enable construction of a single family dwelling with reduced setbacks on a property. Planning & Zoning: The applicant seeks to enable the ability to re-establish a dwelling on their 0.4 acre property. The subject property is located at 417 Frog Hollow Road, and is zoned RA (Rural Areas). The property is presently vacant, but a manufactured structure has recently been brought onto the site in an effort to establish a dwelling on the site. The property's limited size, when considering building setback requirements, renders the property a challenge to place a dwelling. The re-establishment of the residential nonconforming use would enable the dwelling to be placed on site in the general vicinity of a dwelling that previously existed. Page 2 CUP #08-11, Smithfield Properties August 22, 2011 Article IX of the Zoning Ordinance addresses Nonconforming Uses. More specifically, Chapter 165-901.03 establishes the process by which a legally nonconforming use may be re-established by obtaining a conditional use permit. The applicant has requested to re-establish a discontinued nonconforming use to enable construction of a single family dwelling. Section 165-901.03 of the Zoning Ordinance states: Any use that was legally nonconforming under the provisions of this Part 901 and that was discontinued due to abandonment may be re-established by obtaining a conditional use permit. Such conditional use permit shall be granted only for the use that is equal or lesser non -conformity than the original use in relation to intensity, type of use, dimensional requirements or other requirements. Such requests to re-establish an abandoned use shall be considered following the procedures for conditional use permits in this chapter. Property's Zoning History The original Zoning Map for Frederick County (U.S.G.S. Quadrant) depicts the vicinity of the subject property as the A-1 (Agriculture Limited) Zoning District. In 1983, the A- 1 and A-2 Districts were merged into a single district called the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Single Family Dwellings are permitted in both the A-1 and the RA Zoning Districts. Property's History The subject parcel was created on January 6, 1966 when the 0.4 acre parcel was transferred to James Seville (Frederick County Clerk's Office, Book 328 Page 639). Health system approval for a dwelling was granted June 23, 1967. Research indicates that a dwelling was established on the property prior to 1970; this is evidenced by review of a 1970 aerial photo as well as Commissioner of the Revenue records. Aerial photos from 1988 and 2001 indicate that a dwelling was on the property. A house on the property burned down on June 2, 2004, as evidenced by an article in the Winchester Star; the house was not replaced. In a survey by Artz and Associates, dated December 7, 2007, the burnt dwelling's foundation actually encroached the western property line up to 2.2 ft. Zoning Code Implications The County's first Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1967. The ordinance was overhauled, with significant revisions being adopted on November 1, 1973; this 1973 ordinance is the foundation for the ordinance in effect today, in 2011. A dwelling possibly having been erected around the same time that the County adopted a zoning Page 3 CUP #08-11, Smithfield Properties August 22, 2011 ordinance, but certainly prior to the adoption of the 1973 Zoning Ordinance, would suggest that the dwelling would qualify as legally nonconforming. This legally nonconforming status would apply to the residential use as well as its associated building setbacks. A boundary survey from 2007 depicts the previous location of the dwelling prior to burning down. The survey also annotates that the previous dwelling encroached the left property line by 2.2 feet, thereby establishing that the dwelling had no setback from the southwestern property line. Recent Actions The applicant purchased the property in 2007. In 2009, application for a building permit was made to establish a new dwelling on the property in the general location where the burnt dwelling previously stood. A complaint was received regarding the construction of a dwelling on the property, as well as that the dwelling was being placed too close to the adjacent (southwestern) property line. Upon further research, staff determined that while the location of the new dwelling was consistent with that of the burnt dwelling, because more than 12 months had passed since the dwelling burned, the placement near the adjacent property line was no longer legally nonconforming. It was determined that the ability to place the dwelling on the property, and its placement in the vicinity of the burnt dwelling, would require the re-establishment of the legally nonconforming use, achieved with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. CONCLUSION FOR THE SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE'T'ING: Based on the documentation provided, staff believes that this property meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in respect to Section 165-901.03 — re-establishing a legally nonconforming use. It is also worth noting that the new dwelling will be less nonconforming than the original use due to the house being constructed five feet from the property line, unlike the previous dwelling which was constructed over the property line. Staff believes that this conditional use permit is appropriate for approval. 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. x'365 FROG HOLUc 351y FROG HOLLOW R` D Application Parcels Building Footprints B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) 62 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) — M7 (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) 'l 7 FROG: HOLLOW RD/\ `1 405'' �n FROG 4 HOLLOWIRD 1 442 FROG, 'v✓ 384 FROG. DW R0 351 Ria` 671 674 654 608 739 CUP # 08 - 11 Smithfield Properties PIN: 22-A-20 Re -Establish Discontinued Non - Conforming Use Single Family Dwelling 0 75 150 tf � 669 Note: Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development N Kent St Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: August 16, 2011 Staff: djohnston 300 Feet --1 NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON JULY 5, 2001. 2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD, 3. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. S 88'47'43" E REBAR SET REBAR 49.50' SET 2.2' ORIGINAL k STRUCTURE ENCROACHED UP TO 2.2' /PREV. DWELLING LOCATION 1.2' (BURNED DOWN) TM #22-A-21 SABINO & MARIA r, BONILLA INST. #040012340 �� ao BOUNDARY SURVEY of 161208 sq. ft. TM #22-A-19 JAMES E., III & MARY JO GIBSON INST. #020004695 S NO- 7>, 9p, F 36,208 Sq. ,1-. POINT REBAR SET 5 0�p554 Ow RO ND FRp6 N�Vg_ 6x41 i 4p R/W GAINESBORO DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1" = 40' DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2007 PRESENT OWNER: SMITHFIELD PROPERTIES L.L.C. TM #22-A-20 INST.# 070015295 PROJECT #22093 REBAR FOUND L=36.27' R=418.34' 0=04'58'01 " C LEN=36.25' BRG=S 74'37'28" W PLT H OF MICHAEL M. ARTZ v Lic. No. 1513—B Artz and Associates, PLC A SubeidiaU of Valley Enee ginring, PLC LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 16 East Pi—dilly Street WINCHESTER, VA 22601-4740 TEL 540-60-3233 FAX 540-667-9188 TOLL FREE 1-800-755-7320 r y 14 tit 4 VA i Lk t 1 41 K Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIOilAAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of.your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage offeet and a depth of `2- !] -'S6 feet and consists of a acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned b P P Y Y�� :Jule+�1� a s evidenced by deed from ..vt IV�C'H' s ' recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. "�2 b on page as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. 2-6 Magisterial District C -Ent -S'6 - -m --Current- Zoning ' A - G 2 'Ti -- F 1. Applicant (The applicant if the -- owner other) Q NAME: ADDRESS: -3m141,-,t±t A -viz - TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants as any entities occupying the property), interest of the property: (adult individuals as well or parties in the ` I e l ry� y 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of.your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage offeet and a depth of `2- !] -'S6 feet and consists of a acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned b P P Y Y�� :Jule+�1� a s evidenced by deed from ..vt IV�C'H' s ' recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. "�2 b on page as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. 2-6 Magisterial District C -Ent -S'6 - -m --Current- Zoning ' A - G 2 'Ti -- F 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING 7 �^ North �-C c i l e ,6 C East " 5 i _ South West V --es c 1i4 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposedf that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME .ct rysar, �t ADDRESS 3D [i PROPERTYIN '2z — R �t NAME icy y� l' �r° G1� S ADDRESS 32- I PROPERTY ID# Z 2- _ A 21 NAME PROPERTY ID# 2-'2- — A — Lf NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# NAME PROPERTY ID# ff ADDRESS��("��'to ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant / Signature of Owner l 4f ► G Owners' Mailing Address `i I - `- -,L j L t-� `�c 4� Owners' Telephone No. (Slto� ��3(o " P Z. 2-o TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: COUNTY of FR E-A D RACK i)epar¢me at of Planniag and ITevelopment 54C/655-5551 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Nearing — Proposed Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan DATE: August 22, 2011 In spring 2010, the Town of Middletown approached Frederick County seeking a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) between the two jurisdictions. The request was with the support of the major land owners within the proposed BLA area. The County agreed to evaluate the Town's request, and the Reliance Road Steering Committee (RRSC) was convened. The RRSC consists of representation from each jurisdiction: Supervisors Bill Ewing and Gary Lofton representing Frederick County, and Mayor Mark Brown and Councilor John Blaisdell representing the Town of Middletown. Through extensive discussions and evaluations, the RRSC identified three steps in the process which might lead to a BLA: (1) adopt a Land Use Plan for the area in question; (2) evaluate provisions for water and sewer service to the area; and (3) consider the BLA. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors reviewed the proposed Land Use Plan this past spring, and offered support and direction to process the proposed plan through the public hearing process. The proposed land use plan is now presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing item. Following the public hearing, a recommendation from the Commission regarding this proposed plan is appropriate. Proposed Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Pian The proposed land use plan identifies future commercial and technology uses to a 311 acre area along Reliance Road, at 1-81 Exit 302, east of the Town of Middletown. The area's proximity to 1-81 supports uses that would serve the travelling public, as well as employment opportunities. 107 North Kent Street, .suite 202 • Winchester, *7ik gin:a 22601-5000 Page 2 Planning Commission Public Hearing Proposed Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan August 22, 2011 It is noted that the plan's proposed uses could potentially enable heavy water usage. If the plan is adopted, efforts should be implemented to properly manage the permitted land use reflective of available water and sewer capacities. It was also noted that the draft plan does not include an expansion for the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), a County policy which permits the use of public utilities. The SWSA issue would be revisited as the Town's water capacities are deemed available to serve the various sites. This proposed area plan was presented at a community meeting on November 18, 2010, and comments were received. The comments received addressed both the draft land use plan as well as the overall proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA), with mixed support/opposition. The draft plan is now being considered individually by each jurisdiction. Ultimately, if the land use plan is deemed appropriate, the plan would be adopted as part of the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BLA and expansion of the SWSA is not part of the proposed land use plan under consideration through this public hearing process. The draft Plan has been reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors, and with their support and direction is now being processed as a public hearing. The Commission did express support for the land uses, noting that both water and transportation improvements should be addressed prior to implementing the land uses identified in the land use Plan. Please contact staff should you have questions. Thank you. ERL/bad Attachment: Proposed Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan text and map cc: Reliance Road Steering Committee APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS RELIANCE ROAD AREA JOINT LAND USE PLAN Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan - draft for public hearing APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS RELIANCE ROAD AREA .JOINT LAND USE PLAN In spring 2010, the Town of Middletown expressed interest in expanding its boundaries to incorporate approximately 250 acres of land on the east side of I-81, Exit 302, following Reliance Road. Shortly thereafter, the Reliance Road Steering Committee (RRSC) was convened. The RRSC was composed of representatives from the Town Council and the Board of Supervisors. The RRSC met various times over the ensuing months. The Town representatives also held a community meeting and met with individual property owners within the study area to gain an understanding of the interest of the property owners in terms of the Town's desired boundary line adjustment with the County, as well as future land use opportunities; these meetings were summarized and presented to the RRSC by Town representatives. It was noted that while approximately 37 acres of B2 Business General Zoning exists within the study area, only one site has been developed and benefits from the Town's water and sewer system: the 2.7 acre site occupied by an existing Exxon service station. The RRSC also evaluated the existing transportation network in addition to water and sewer availability. The RRSC considered the Foresight Middletown plan (adopted into the Town's Comprehensive Plan in 2005), which promoted the implementation of a technology park east of the interstate. The results of these findings led to the crafting of the conceptual Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan as a means to illustrate the potential land uses for the area, and to foster further discussions. The conceptual land use plan is envisioned to guide land use decisions for an area of approximately 311 acres over the next 20 to 30 years. Recognizing the Town's current water availability, development within the study area will initially be limited until an additional water supply is more readily available. Additionally, policy enabling the Town to provide water and sewer service to the County properties would require Board approval. Land Use The proximity of the study area to I-81, Exit 302, enhances the opportunities for land uses that benefit from the interstate. As such, commercial and technology uses would be most beneficial at this location. The plan calls for the establishment of approximately 44 acres of commercial uses that serve the travelling public, such as hotels, gasoline service stations, and restaurants. The commercial opportunities would be located immediately east of the interstate interchange, on the north and south sides of Reliance Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan - draft for public hearing APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS Road. This is also the area where public water and sewer presently serves the existing Exxon service station. These land uses could be implemented through the B2 Business General Zoning District. Technology uses are envisioned both north and south of Reliance Road, covering approximately 259 acres. Based on the targeted businesses identified by the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission, the technology uses would include economic sectors such as: Advanced Security, Assembly, Business Services, and Life Sciences. These land uses would be implemented through the OM Office Manufacturing Zoning District. In recognition of the continuation of the agricultural and large lot residential land uses adjacent to the study area, efforts should be implemented through the rezoning and development process that mitigate and lessen the adverse impacts that the commercial and technological uses may introduce. Mitigation techniques such as 100 -foot distance buffers and landscape screening would be expected. Transportation While the existence of I-81, Exit 302, is a strong asset to the areas' transportation network, the actual configuration of the interchange and its close proximity of Buckton Road is not conducive to accommodating future traffic demands. In order for the interchange to operate efficiently and effectively in the future, it is essential to migrate the existing intersection of Reliance and Buckton Roads further east, creating a greater separation distance from the I-81 northbound on/off ramps. Increasing this separation distance will avoid significant degradation of the interchange similar to what has occurred at Exit 307 in Stephens City. In rapidly growing areas, as noted in the Foresight Middletown plan, controlling and coordinating the number, design and location of new access points to major roadways is critical to maintaining the safety and capacity of the road system as traffic volumes increase. Accordingly, access to Reliance Road should be managed and limited. The plan calls for limiting Reliance Road access to three points: a managed access entrance point in the vicinity of Confidence Lane, and two appropriately spaced roundabout or signalized intersections. The initial access point would be established with the relocation of Buckton Road. These three access points would facilitate traffic movement to/from Reliance Road into the various future land uses to the north and south. It may also be appropriate to utilize a roundabout at the relocated Buckton Road intersection with Reliance Road as a means to define where the developed portion of Reliance Road ends and the rural land uses of the County begin. A similar technique was suggested by the Foresight Middletown plan as a means to create an entrance to the developed area. Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan - draft for public hearing APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS Finally, the Foresight Middletown plan calls for Reliance Road within the Town limits to be a boulevard with a landscaped median; the Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan carries this design concept forward east of the interstate. Water and Sewer The Town recently completed an upgrade to its wastewater treatment facility which enables it to treat upwards of 400,000 gpd. Reflective of the slowing economy and the Town's limited water availability, the wastewater facility is currently operating at less than 30 percent capacity; the facility is available to service future wastewater demands. Existing limitations in water availability and the conveyance lines under the interstate may hinder development in the near future. As the Town secures additional water availability, upgrades to the conveyance system could easily be undertaken. Reflective of current water availability, the Town is positioned to dedicate up to 18,000 gpd of water to development on the east side of I-81. This available water resource could facilitate an initial expansion of the commercial land uses to include a hotel, expanded gasoline service station/convenience center, and a restaurant. Any additional commercial uses would certainly warrant additional water resources. Development of the technology park land uses will be limited until additional water resources are identified and available. Technology uses that require limited water resources would certainly be more desirable initially, until the expanded water supply has been secured and accessible. Reliance Road Area Joint Land Use Plan - draft for public hearing d 4 � g 11'�IIIi�+ 1 town n la .rte 8 /010 ss Re -Route Buckton Rd Re -Route Buckton Rd �o O1, s NII ?f ",#)Proposed Transportation Study Area (apprx 391 ac) Proposed Land Use >, Highway Commercial (apprx 44 ac.) Mixed - Use Industrial Office (apprx 259 ac.) 1) There is potential that additional through lanes would be needed depending upon the scope of development, 2) This change would require a traffic study under chapter 527. This study would give the needed information to refine roadway system improvement expectations. 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles Z?Re.-'Route Buckton Rd 1r Right - in Right - Out Entrances, V AX. Potential Signal or Roundabout rloo'�on d A *k Potential Signal or Roundabout Area Plan 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map Approved: xxxxxxx, 2011 DRAFT n 171 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 1 EMORA�g D�JM 540/665-5651 1 ev' FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior PlannWi Subject: Public Hearing — Lot Sizes and Setback Requirements for Public Utilities Rate: August 22, 2011 Staff has been requested to review the minimum lot size and setback requirements for lots that contain public utilities. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires that the minimum lot size for these uses follow the minimum lot size specified for the individual zoning district and meet all setback and access requirements. Staff has prepared an amendment that would allow the Zoning Administrator to authorize the creation of lots smaller than the current zoning district requirements for lots utilized for the sole purpose of public utilities; the amendment also allows for the elimination of the on-site sewage disposal requirement and reduces the access easement width requirement. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on July 28, 2011. The DRRC endorsed the amendment with minor changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed the draft amendment at their August 3, 2011 meeting and forwarded the amendment as drafted to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors discussed this amendment at their August 10, 2011 meeting and had one minor change; with that one change, the Board sent the amendment forward for public hearing. The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors on this proposed Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics CEP/bad 107 North Kert Street, Suite 202 s Winchester, Virginia 22661-5000 ATTACHMENT 1 DRRC Reviewed 7/28/2011 PC Reviewed 8/3/2011 BOS Reviewed 8/10/2011 Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.26. Public Utilities. A. Public Utilities. lot requirements for lots used by political subdivisions, municipal corporations the Virciinia Department of Transportation, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, or the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for public utility purposes shall be as follows: (1) in all zoning districts the Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to determine the minimum lot size necessary for such public utilities and the appropriate setbacks for such lots used for public utility purposes. (2) Such lots shall be exempt from the individual on-site sewage disposal system requirements. (3) Such lots may be accessed by private access easements; any such easement shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.05 Minimum lot size. The minimum lot size for permitted uses shall be two acres, unless otherwise specified b 165-204.26. Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land ARTICLE V Design Standards § 144-24. Lot requirements. C. Lot access. Unless otherwise specified in Chapter 165 or 144, all lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation. :-7 • :�7 COfJNTY of lr R DEWC MEMORANDUM Department of Planning aad Development ,�f`�E M RA ND UM 546/ 465-565; FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Public Hearing — Automotive Repair Shops in the M 1 Zoning District Date: August 22, 2011 Staff has received numerous requests to permit automobile repair shops in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Automobile repair is currently permitted in the B3 (Industrial Transition) and the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts. Staff has drafted an ordinance amendment that would permit SIC 752 as a permitted use in the M1 Zoning District along with additional supplemental use regulations for the use. If approved, this amendment would permit the following: • Top, Body and Upholstery Repair Shops and Paint Shops • Automotive Exhaust System Repair Shops • Tire Retreading and Repair Shops (currently permitted in the M1) • Automotive Glass Replacement Shops • Automotive Transmission Repair Shops • General Automotive Repair Shops • Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on May 26, 2011. The DRRC endorsed the amendment and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item at their July 6, 2011 meeting. The Commission questioned if the EDC and the IPA had been contacted regarding this amendment. Staff stated that they were not directly contacted but that there is representation on the DRRC. The Planning Commission then recommended that the amendment be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for review. The Board of Supervisors discussed this amendment at their July 27, 2011 meeting and sent the amendment forward for public hearing. The attached documents show the existing ordinances with the proposed changes (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2. SIC 752 CEP/bad 197 North bent Street, Suite 262 • Winchester, Virg nba 22601-5000 ATTACHMENT 1 DRRC Discussed 5/27/2011 PC Discussion 7/6/2011 BOS Discussion 7/27/2011 ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 606 — M1 Light Industrial District § 165-606.02. Allowed uses. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Automotive Repair Shops 753 TiFe FetFeadiRg 7564 Article If SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.12 Motor vehicle service uses, automotive repair shops and public garages. All motor vehicle service uses, automotive repair shops and public garages shall meet the following requirements: A. All repair shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen at least six #ire -feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained. C. Inoperable motor vehicles must be stored within a totally enclosed building or screened on all sides by a six foot opaque element such a fence, wall or berm. D. In the RA, MI and M2 Zoning Districts, the sale of automobiles shall not be permitted as an accessory or secondary use to any automotive repair shop. ATTACMIENT 2 �17 2 STAYDARI-I TXDITSMA:�'- C-L,�'�S-Rlr'JC'AT'ON I nil tfzT-�' 751 jklITOMOTIVE ItEINTAL AND LIL'-'1-qLNC, WITHoUT DRIVERS—Ican- Utility Tmler and RctcreatiOnal Vehicle RwLal—Con. MdAe Iv"rwrenul, Utility fultal 7521 AUTCOVIOBILE PARKING 75 -2 1 AutomoijUe Palling' 1winiarity engaged in the L-C-jj)pQrary parking of antornobi it's. -T---ztnbjLqhment.- oil wi hourly, daflY, or 3.,noi hly contract or fee ba-sis. Est-qb1ishmell - usuzl y pi-irnai . -Ry engagl'ed in emfteriOed or de, J s6arage or O"Lltonnobiles cixv classified in Transportation, lndust-T� 4226, 153 'PAIR SHOPS AMOMOTIVE RE 7-52" Toll, Body, and Jypjj,()j�-, t.(!vy Repair ihops an I I'ai lit S (P d in ffie -rcPziir Of aUtOnlGtiv(-' tops B-Stat'hSlinicilts, pyjnlarilv en -gage bodies, and, interiars, or autOynotivep,,4jilting and. rein ling Also includedill Ilt aL -tollli7 WICS, dustry are establishments prinivArily engned ITA oil., -ing ftntomol )t on a Ractury Ilasis. Establishillelits prim,Irily mgm,ed trucjm, and Vans exce] c - -awjig auto obile., trneks, and vans oll a Pactou, bas -is are c1tissified , custo: 7 in 'jNjanufiacturin�g, Industry Group 3 (1, 'kPf.'tUL and dnwk 4.wtaa OMIC fin n-1, 01 cxb"PL on a fittory bei� Awan-lative. rwilt Awpf� vaym . - ',Y� , Fr UpIvolste r AU - 'tawfi�. iom icawm�. y . repair, nclAnuoL VA" cy�' int t�dwl P'"Ilufiffm repair, or acrdm'd i.!Ial- i2tion 75331 Automotive Exzhaust System Repair SI-iops '111- ent,- primarily engaged in the hisufflation, rep -Mr, or stile and !I'- stallation of -aut-amotive e7haust EYsbOms- 'PJIEe sale of Trufllcr--j tzu)pipes' and is considered to be incidental to the installation OF the se cafal5itic vxcmverters prodix mem Serr.cor., wit 'noti-.-C lfttiiff�; or vzdv'� m: if ={6111- ispair, fl -n or 7431 Tire Retreadilig and ReMlir Sh011s tuab tents primarily cnt.laged in 1-cpaixing and reti-cacling aulamMINIC rs' --- tire,-- Estabb-,hnientss cla.s.sifled here may either retread cnstome tires or tc tread tires for sale or exchange to the user or the tracle. f! Tire mpak f"hv'p5 Pc -qr:(f. ing mid Y,0rc-'-AIr;' OIIK� F01 Iv life Stufldttl� ';jA ixaftcl vulefMI'lar 1i �-- awl, wl'-'-� nfArrmdilqg lirt'i T mcappiIII5 SS, RNTLCES luaus -'T OTIvE RE� P -A -IR IsHOPS-Con. jk U.'r 0 -m 7 S Automotive Glass peplaeew .eut. hop& erig,aged. is the bist'allab--m- tePal'�, L75tablishments primarily - or sales and I s. The sale Of thegglam is considered jaudental jjjSLJjj.JtiDU Of alltOWtObyp- las to i lie replacement. Gia. rzptwtmct I -r -d repnir.uutt-O- !itm 7-."37 ktitonjotive TramallissiOn Itepa-ir Shops -jort. repair, or sale -q and _I)e ing .all_ -t Pats ormal 11-stablighm t ss1nns and reUded ions, The male of t,-amw;- jn.st.�fflatiDn of automotive t-m-mmit's incidental to flim installatiOn Or rt -Pair of the -kc 13ro"e:g pjjrtS is considered milanuni6t_ 'ka--i'altudon. _4,jmaeo tmn-�i^ ion TwT,4w, iii Gleneral Autulnc4ive Rt --pair Show y_�� Ichments primarily enged in nfterftl 311tOw0t':"- impair. Establish- ments PrimarilY en.MPl "I industrial truck repair C15 -S' led in lndLlgt Y rr r rix p1dr. UjA AUWSw,jve tt4uir f;btsp.,, 90 TA T:.h;-Pte F;Puir' Rutamnumly TM& gr'p Otiye nepair Shops, Not EJSCWhug� iiutom in specialized a-dtoma1,j-,,e repair, not eL&e- Establislu-nents p�,imarjjy engaged lining, ft -on, where classiBedL, such as fuel service (carburetor repair), tali e rL end $md w1jeL.1 alignment, and radiatol- repair. Establishments yjrbn?-riJy ell gaged: in automotiNre weldibgg are C.1113Ssifled in jrjdustry 76.92. 1 Fro"empw t ii tp.. . Autma!M"t wimp, Fad srim Crotme.sion, I-Wontt"A; mp= FjjW Wtmm rq�.r. umlvmatWv ALIC d=Ightening, RuLdinvu-m Cw.nv-rp ,w autiam, nt;d Lnetamtiufl iive Ttvair eQ(-j*' uuttnwiiivt w1d ipillivn repair) 754, AUTO MOT11TE SVRVICD4 ";, E-XCE4 PT RE� P"'M (512 CAM-R-shels ashing, waling, and p6iisbin- motor EstablLthments, prim.,wjj�. engaged in iT I;, -r siliner of moibr Ve*hi- vehicles, or in furnishing facilities liar tlie sel cles- Rtr' wm�hkng Truck waguing, CummeatE r�nhf= wId pAthing, a'Allowtit'r CASNning and 11rijigijit, digaffing-) r.V"�wg' at! E, Ing. wAvywdl-m. RLI. .0w. for A.Z.0mrZ up a mnVoct. or fee- imrx 11'iLsi:jjkr (Aefaimgr and ;mtm PV' re'-! bwAs COUNTY TY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development �,/� I� f1�,IORA D TM 540/665-5651 1►i h J y- ✓ �J l e Y FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planne4l"��Q Subject: Discussion — Chapter 165 Landscaping Requirements Date: August 22, 2011 Over the years, staff has encountered issues regarding the landscaping requirements contained within the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, concerns have been expressed over the allowable plant types, maintenance of plants, enforcement and bonding, residential separation buffers and road efficiency buffers. To resolve these issues and make the landscaping ordinance easier to understand and implement, staff has drafted proposed changes to the landscaping requirements contained within the Zoning Ordinance. The draft landscaping ordinance proposes the following revisions: • Types of landscaping - Revisions to include new plant types, removal of certain plants and/or elimination of plants for specific landscaping uses. s Provisions for the condition, planting procedures and maintenance of landscaping. • Provisions for the replacement of dead or dying plants and a requirement that plants removed be replaced with a larger plant size, and a requirement that fences and walls be maintained. • Revisions to the allowances for tree credits and provisions for the replacement of trees utilized for tree credits. • Enforcement and Guarantees - Expanded section regarding bonding of landscaping to receive occupancy permits. • Revised buffer and screening text, including revisions to the distance buffer text to outline what is permissible within inactive and active buffer areas. • Residential Separation Buffers - Complete revision to the required separation buffers between various housing types. • Road Efficiency Buffers - Complete revision to the required buffers between residential uses and roadways. The DRRC first discussed these revisions in October of 2009 and again in May and July of 2011. At the July meeting, the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended they be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with bold underline for text added and strikethrough for text deleted). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Draft Landscaping Ordinance Revisions CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 z Winchester, Virginir 22601-5000 DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements Proposed chances Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 203 — Buffers and Landscaping § 185-203.01 Landscaping requirements. The requirements of this section are intended to enhance the appearance, environment, and general welfare of tie r -f Frederick County by providing minimum landscaping standards and encouraging tree preservation for F^r',;—developments. The provisions of this section shallapply__to all site plan and subdivision design plan applications, including the revision or expansion of any site or development. Note: Subsection "A" is unchanged. B. Plant selection, planting procedure, and maintenance. (1) Plant selection. Based on the type of landscaping, required trees and shrubs shall be selected from the table-l+s-t of acceptable trees and shrubs shown below: Types of Landscaping Street tree landscaping (street) Ornamental landscaping (ornamental) Tree preservation landscaping (canopy) Interior and perimeter landscaping (shade), Buffer screening and parking lot screening (screen), Deciduous buffer element (street, canopy, shade), buffer shrub element (shrub or screen) Acceptable Trees and Shrubs Common Name Scientific Name Types of Landscaping Permitted Amur Maple Acer ginnala Street, shade, canopy, ornamental European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Katsura Tree Cercidiphyllum japonicum Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Ginkgo (male) Ginkgo biloba Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Golden -Rain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Flowering Crabapple Malus (disease resistant varieties) Street, shade, canopy, ornamental 1 DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis Street shade canopy, ornamental Linden Tilia (all varities) Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Red Oak Quercus rubra Street, shade, canopy, ornamental White Oak Quercus alba Street, shade, canopy, ornamental Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea Street shade canopy, ornamental Sawtooth Oak Quercus acutissima Street shade canopy, ornamental Kentucky Coffeefree Gymnocladus diocus Street shade canopy, ornamental Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides Street, shade, canopy Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii Street shade, canopy Willow Oak Quercus phellos Shade, canopy, ornamental Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Street, shade, canopy Red Maple Acer rubrum Shade, canopy, ornamental Freeman Maple Acer freemanii Shade, canopy, ornamental Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Shade, canopy, ornamental Paperbark Maple Acergriseum Shade, canopy, ornamental American Sycamore Platanus occidentallis Shade, canopy, ornamental London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia Shade, canopy, ornamental Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Shade, canopy, ornamental Copper Beech Fagus sylvatica 'Riversii' Shade, canopy, ornamental Weeping Beech Fagus pendula Shade, canopy, ornamental European Beech Fagus sylvatica Shade, canopy, ornamental River Birch Betula nigra Shade, canopy, ornamental Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Shade, canopy, ornamental DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements Saucer Magnolia Magnolia x soulangiana Shade, canopy, ornamental Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica Shade, canopy, ornamental Yellowwood Cladrastis kentukea Shade, canopy, ornamental Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Shade, canopy, ornamental Hawthorn Crataegus plaenopyrum, Crataegus viridis Shade, canopy, ornamental Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum Shade, canopy, ornamental Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera Shade, canopy, ornamental Paw Paw Asimina triloba Shade, canopy, ornamental Dogwood Cornus florida, Cornus kousa, Cornus hybrid Shade, ornamental Flowering Cherry Prunus (all varieties of Flowering Cherry) Shade, ornamental Cornelian Cherry Cornus mas Shade, ornamental Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Shade, ornamental American Plum Prunus americana Shade, ornamental Japanese Maple Acer palmatum Shade, ornamental Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Screen, ornamental White Fir Abies concolor Screen, ornamental Spruce Picea (all varieties) Screen, ornamental Japanese Umbrella Pine Sciadopitys verticillata Screen, ornamental Hinoki False Cypress Chamaecyparis obtusa Screen, ornamental White Pine Pinus strobus Screen, canopy Western Arborvitae Thuja plicata Screen, ornamental Eastern Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis (all varieties) Screen, ornamental Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis x leylandi Screen, ornamental Japanese Cedar Cryptomeria iaponica Screen, ornamental Viburnum (Evergreen) (all evergreen/semi-evergreen varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements MM Yew Taxus (all varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub Holly Ilex (all varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub Common Boxwood Buxus sempervirens Screen, ornamental, shrub Juniper Juniperus (all varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub Abelia (All varieties) Screen ornamental, shrub Witchhazel Hamamelis vernalis Ornamental, shrub White Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus Ornamental, shrub Slender Deutzia Deutzia gracilis Ornamental, shrub Althea Hibiscus syriacus Ornamental, shrub Vicars privet Ligustrum x vicaryi Ornamental, shrub Sweet Mockorange Philadelphus coronarius Ornamental, shrub Japanese pieris Pieris japonica Ornamental, shrub Cotoneaster (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub Spirea (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub Weigela (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub Forsythia (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub Dwarf Fothergilla Fothergilla gardenii Ornamental, shrub Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Ornamental, shrub Japanese pagodatree Sophora iaponica Ornamental, shrub Chastetree Vitex agnus-castus Ornamental, shrub Standard Nandina Nandina domestica Ornamental, shrub Purple Plum Prunus cerasifera Ornamental Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica Ornamental Persian parrotia Parrotia persica ornamental Hydrangea (all varieties) Ornamental DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements Mugo pine Pinus muco Ornamental Itea (All varieties) Ornamental Aronia (All varieties) Ornamental Clethra (All varieties) Ornamental Azalea Rhododendron (All varieties) Ornamental Rhododendron (All varieties) Ornamental Northern Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica Ornamental Meyer Lilac Syringa meyeri 'Palibin Ornamental (2) Condition.All new plants required by this article shall be of specimen quality exceptionally heavy, symmetrical and outstandingly superior in form, compactness and symmetry. They shall be sound healthy, vigorous- branched and denselyfoliated when in lea • ree o disease and insects e s or larvae and shall have healthy, well-developed root systems. They shall be free from physical damage or other conditions that would prevent vigorous growth. Trees with a damaged or crooked leader, bark abrasions sun scale disfiguring knots, insect damage or cuts of limbs over % inch in diameter that are not completely closed will be reiected. (- 3) Planting procedure. All required trees and shrubs shall meet the specifications and procedures established by of -the American of NuFseFyme^ Nursery and Landscape Association. a) All trees shall be planted no closer than three feet to the edge of sidewalks, curb or other pavement. b) Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two-inch caliper at the time of planning. c) Only sin le stem trees shall be planted as street trees. d) Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four feet in height at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be a minimum three -gallon container at the time of planting. In addition to the three -gallon container requirement, parking lot screening shrubs shall be a minimum of 36" in height at time of planting and buffer shrubs shall be a minimum of 18" in height at time of planting. Spacing of parking lot screening shrubs shall be no greater than four (4) feet on center. e) Only trees having a mature height of less than 20 feet shall be located under overhead utility lines. f) Measurement of Size. Caliper is measured six (6) inches above the around up to and including four (4) inch caliper size, and twelve 112) inches above ,the ground for larger sizes. Diameter at breast height (dbh) will be measured at the height of 54 inches from the base of the trunk or as otherwise allowed in the Guide for Plant Appraisal. (4) Diversity. For each group of plant material street shade, screen, buffer, etc.) the plan shall have a diverse mix of species. In those cases where there are twenty-one (21) or more of one plant type (such as buffer trees) the percentage of one species within each group shall not exceed thirty percent f30%). In smaller projects where twenty 20 or less of any Plant type are required, the thirty percent 30% maximum shall not apply. { 5) Maintenance. The owner, developer, and/or builder who is responsible for planting required landscaping as shown on an approved site or subdivision plan, shall be responsible for maintaining it in a state of good health for one year after planting. After one year, from the date occupancy is approved, the individual property owner C DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements and/or ^PF's, property owners association shall become responsible for maintenance. Maintenance shall include the following: met' the ZeRiRg Adninistrater may waive the a) Maintaining landscaping in goo Ilowing shade trees to grow according to the natural hei ht width and habit of the particular species and shall prohibit the topping of required trees. b) Dead or dyiniz vecietation shall be replaced per direction of the Zoning Administrator. Replacement shrubs shall be of a size consistent with that which could normally be expected based upon the specific species and the length of time elapsed since initial installation. Re lacement trees shall be 'z" calip er larger for each year since initial installation of said re uired trees except that no owner shall be required to re lace any tree with another tree larger than three 3 inches in caliper. c) Fences and walls shall be maintained in good repair openings within the barriers may be required by the Zoning Administrator for accessibility to an area for necessary maintenance or pedestrian accessibility. 6 Substitutions. All trees and shrubs planted shall be of the species and size seci ied on thea roved site Ian or subdivision design plan, unless substitutions have been approved in writing by the Zoning Administer or his designee prior to lantin . Substitutions that have been pianted without Prior ap roval shall be removed and replaced by acceptable secies ire uired bthe Zonin Administratar. 7 Waivers. So long as the intent of this section is met, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement or lands ca in on individual buildin lots when a hazard or nuisance exists. Existing tree credits. Exrstma vegetation which is suitable for use in compliance with the requirements of 4t4e ; § 165-203.01< <,�, including species type and location, and existing trees that are preserved may be counted towards the total number of required trees for residential developments. Commercial and industrial developments may utilize existing tree credits when calculating the required number of parking lot trees, as required in § 165-202.O1E(11), if the preserved trees are shown on an approved site plan and serve the intent of interior and perimeter landscaping. The following table shows the credit given for each preserved tree, based on the tree's diameter at breast hei hth r db • Diameter Breast Height (dbhl Tree Credit 4to6 1 7to12 2 13 to 18 3 19 to 29 4 Greater than 30 5 (1) When existing trees are utilized for tree credits, the Critical Root Zone for these trees must be entire contained within a delineated no disturbance area. DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements (2) In the event that an existing tree utilized for tree credits dies or is removed, the tree will be replaced by the Planting of nursery stock trees. The number of replacement trees will be determined by the number of credits received for the existing tree. D. Fegui r -ed GensultatiE)R with the appliGaRt. Such guaranties shall be released wheR the Feguired imprevements-have been eem Enforcement Procedures and Guaranty Requirements. in lieu of installation of the landscape and screening materials prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer or property owner may post a guaranty acceptable to the County, conditioned upon satisfactory installation of the improvements proposed in the Site Plan or Subdivision Design Plan. The guaranty shall be supported by (1) an estimate prepared by a landscape contractor of the cost of installing such landsca-oinA_in an amount determined to be sufficient by the Zoning Administrator, and (2) a letter expressing the intent of the developer to install the required plants. If the required landscapin-g is not installed within six (6) months, the monetary quaranty shall be forfeited to the County to use for the planting of the required materials. § 165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements. it the iRtent of the Fegulat;ORs The purpose and intent of this section is to encourage proper design of a site in order to protect adjaGeRt exiSti;g uses and to pretect prepesed uses within theses from and mitigate the effects of an incompatible development an a_diacent uses by requiring shielding in the form of a screen and/or buffer between the uses. This screen and/or buffer shall be installed in order to minimize the harmful impacts of noise, dust and other debris or other artificial intrusion, and other activities or impacts created by an incompatible adjoining use. Gertain types ef uses must be buffeFed fFem etheF types iR OFEIeF te eRsure a desirable living enViMRMeRt. Additionally, appropriate distances must be maintained between commercial, industrial and residential uses and roads. The maintenance of all buffer and screening elements shall be in accordance with § 165-203.U1B(3). A. Distance buffers. Distance buffers are based on the nature of an activity and its proximity to an activity of a different nature. They are linear distances measured from property lines inward. Part of the buffer must be inactive and part may be active. Utility easements may be included within buffer yard areas provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and required landscaping is not planted within said easement without prior written approval from the owner of the easement. The inactive portion begins at the adjoining property line, as shown in the example diagrams. (1) Inactive distance buffer. This portion of a buffer area permits no activity except the necessary utility functions provided by transmission lines, underground conduits, etc. Inactive buffers shall not contain road rights -of - ways but may contain vehicular interparcel connections or access to a parcel if no other means of vehicular access are available. Stormwater management and BMP facilities shall not be permitted within an inactive buffer area unless they meet the intent of the inactive distance buffer and only if approved by the Zoning Administrator. (2) Active distance buffer. This portion of a buffer area may not be encroached by a building or other principal structure or activity. However, accessory activities, such as parking and passive recreation, are permitted in this area. Active buffers shall not contain road rights-of-way but may contain vehicular interparcel connections and travelways. Stormwater management and BMP facilities shall be permitted within an active buffer area. DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements (3) Wherever proposed developments are adjacent to or within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of existing uses, the Planning Commission may require increased or additional distance buffers to separate different uses to achieve the intentions of this section. B. Screening. Screening is designed to work with distance buffers to lessen the impact of noise or visual interaction between adjacent activities. There are two levels of screening: landscape screening and full screening. The higher the level of screening provided, the lower the level of distance buffer required. The example diagrams show how this wo rks. (1) Landscape screening. A landscape screen consists of a totally landscaped easement at least 10 feet in depth; it is encouraged that the plantings to be spaced appropriately within the inactive buffer. Within the easement, there shall be a minimum landscaping density of three plants per 10 linear feet. The buffer shall consist of a combination of 1/3 deciduous trees, 1/3 evergreen trees and 1/3 shrubs. Deciduous trees shall be planted at a minimum of 2" caliper, evergreen trees shall be a minimum of 4' in height and shrubs shall be 18" in height at time of planting. (2) Full screen. A full screen provides all the elements of a landscape screen and also includes a six -foot -high, opaque hedge, fence, wall, mound or berm. A 50 foot strip of mature woodlands may be allowed as a full screen. (3) Wherever proposed developments are adjacent to existing uses, the Planning Commission may require additional landscaping or landscaped easements to separate different uses and to achieve the intentions of this section. C. Residential separation buffers. Pe `rneteF -and `RteFiar Residential separation buffers shall be established to adequately buffer types -different housing types lFrom adjacent dissimilar housing typeS. The f'-'RGtiOR of thepeFiFREA-eF `eparatie , buf eF shall be to The requirements for �_'' �+ef and iRteFior residential separation buffers are as follows: (1) When placed adjacent to one another, different housing types shaA provide the following residential separation buffers: (a) Wherever pessible or praetical, siRgle family detached tFaditienal, urban, GIUStff and single family zeFe le IiRe and- siRgle family small !at h()USiRg Shall Ret be pla E?ntial l9tS OF .---Are ouffef-Required T.,t-.1 (fnnf) Full &Green� 1 - nds a sGreeR -59 2.00 C DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements -350 4-9a 1 j2j 4 single family zero lat 9F single famPy SM -All 18A SA-F-1-16-AWFes aFe plaeed agaiRSt siRgle family detached Distance -R---ffeF Required wee n Dravids.d Inas- ve (nnir.:r.,um) Ifeet1 stive (Maximum) (feet) e^•T�T(feeQ T -t Full screeR 4r5 4D 275 Landsc-ape sereeR -39 50 -50 ni-Ye sr=FeCR I -so ytl i' -V'0 (b) Bugers shall be placed betweeR the gapdeR apaFtFneRt, multiplex StFL4r=tuFes eF age restricted multifamily h96,r'n rtrnc+i,roo an,d th . L + I'nr ..f+h., L,+r ,-ontainiRg the ether heusing types. with the eveFgFeeR ..+ piante d at a height of six feet, R d -.I, r --Jul do -a Six-foot_hinh ali fnn,-e d r.r hp Distance -R---ffeF Required Screening Provided M Or Total lf.,ntl Pull sscfeeR r-UrANT= 2-5 4-99 Landscape seFeeR 50 2-8 No 5creen 9 (b) Bugers shall be placed betweeR the gapdeR apaFtFneRt, multiplex StFL4r=tuFes eF age restricted multifamily h96,r'n rtrnc+i,roo an,d th . L + I'nr ..f+h., L,+r ,-ontainiRg the ether heusing types. with the eveFgFeeR ..+ piante d at a height of six feet, R d -.I, r --Jul do -a Six-foot_hinh ali fnn,-e d r.r hp Distance -R---ffeF Required Screening Provided 'Raetive (I64ir.:r.....R) (feet) Astive (Maximum) (feet) Total lf.,ntl Pull sscfeeR 2-5 4-99 Landscape seFeeR 50 2-8 No 5creen 9 -59 00 (b) Bugers shall be placed betweeR the gapdeR apaFtFneRt, multiplex StFL4r=tuFes eF age restricted multifamily h96,r'n rtrnc+i,roo an,d th . L + I'nr ..f+h., L,+r ,-ontainiRg the ether heusing types. with the eveFgFeeR ..+ piante d at a height of six feet, R d -.I, r --Jul do -a Six-foot_hinh ali fnn,-e d r.r hp DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements requiremen may be waived by the PlanniRg GeMmissiGF17 MINIMUM_ RESIDENTIAL SEPARATION BUFFER AREA REQUIRED Proposed UserDevelo meat i Adjoining Existing Uso 7iQeyelogment 1 2 3 4 I 5 1. Single-family detached A - A_ B B 2 Single-family zero lot line or small lot - - A B B 3 Sinale-family attached or semi-detached 8 B - 8 8 4. Multi amil buildings 5 Age -restricted multifamily _C C _C 8 - C C - A - Type BUFFER AREA WIDTH AND PLANT REQUIREMENTS Inactive (Minimum) Active (Maximuml Total eet ffeet ffeet Screen Type A 15 10 25 Full Screen A 25 25 50 Landscape Screen A 75 25 100 No Screen B 25 25 50 FuU Screen B 45 30 75 Landscape Screen B 75 25 100 No Screen 75 25 100 Full Screen _C C 100 50 150 Landscape Screen C 150 50 200 I No Screen Buffers shall be placed between the lot line of the proposed housing type and the lot line of the existing adjoining use or development. When placed on individual lots the buffer shall be located within a permanent landscape easement and shall be maintained by the homeowners association. (3) When age restricted multifamily housing adjoins other housing types, the evergreen element of the residential separation buffer shall be planted at a height of six feet. (4) When existing mature woodlands are located within the entire buffer area (total distance if active and inactive buffer), preservation of that woodland will be allowed to substitute for the required plant material. [5 Housing types contained within a mixed use development shall not require residential separation buffers between housing types contained within the same development. Residential separation buffers shall be required when different housing types are placed adjacent to a mixed use development or if the mixed use development abuts different housing types. Note: Subsection "D" is unchanged. E. Road efficiency buffers. The purpose of these requirements are to provide protection for residential structures from any street classified as a collector road or higher while still providing an attractive view of the residential neighborhoods from maior roadways. Itis not the intent of these regulations to provide unarm linear strips of completely opaque screening. 10 DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements (1) All residential structures shall be separated from interstate, limited access, primary, major arterial, minor arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency buffers: Distance Buffer Required Road Type Classification Inactive (minimum) (feet) Active (maximum) (feet) Total (feet) Screen Type Interstate/ arterial/ limited access Full -distance buffer 50 50 100 Landscape Screen Reduced -distance buffer 40 40 80 full Screen Major collector Full -distance buffer 40 40 80 Landscape Screen Reduced -distance buffer 40 10 50 Full Screen (2) All road efficiency buffers shall begin at the edge of the road right-of-way, with the inactive portion abutting the road right-of-way. All required elements of the full -distance buffer or the reduced -distance buffer ;,. entified iR §!955 203.02F(3) shall be located within the inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer. Maintenance of the road efficiency buffer shall be in accordance with ,4165-203.01B(3). The inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer is permitted to count towards the required percentage of common open space; however, no portion of a residential lot shall be located within the inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer. The active portion of the road efficiency buffer may be permitted to be located within a residential lot, provided that the primary structure is not located within the buffer area. Accessory structures may be located within the active portion of the road efficiency buffer, provided that the structures meet all applicable setback requirements. Access roads serving as the primary means of vehicular travel to residential subdivisions are permitted to traverse road efficiency buffers. (3) apaFt. The fi 11-rfirtanrne buffer shall natain a double raw ef eveFgr-eeR tFees that -are a mini.mu.m. A -f fOUF feet iR height when planted. The Fedweed distapee bu4eF shall c-entain aR ear4h beFm that is six feet in height aheve the aveFage FBad gFade and Shall G-9RtaiR a single Few ef eveFgFeen trees 'hat _ar-e a MiRiMUM Of few-r-fiatat in height when plaRted_ Alternative landscaping may be permitted near entrance drives to ensure safe sight distances. The Planning Commission may allow for alternative designs which meet the intent of the section in the event of topography or sight distance constraints. 4 The buffer width may be reduced by up to twenty percent 20% when the line of sight from the traveling lane is at least ten (10) feet above the rear yard elevation of the ground floor of the dwelling. 11 DRAFT Changes - Landscaping Requirements (5) When existing mature woodlands are located within the entire buffer area (reduced distance) and meet the intent of this section, preservation of that woodland will be allowed to substitute for the required plant material and opaque screening. 12 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/565-5655 FAX: 540/665-695 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner � Subject: Discussion — Proposed Additions to the Permitted Uses in the RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts Date: August 22, 2011 This is an amendment revision to Chapter 165 to include additional permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. This proposed amendment would add "public buildings" as a permitted use in the RA and RP Districts, "libraries" as a permitted use in the RA District, and "museums" as a permitted use in the RP District. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on July 27, 2011. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. )Revised ordinance with additions shown in bald underlined italics. CEP/bad Y07 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ATTACHMENT 1 DRRC Reviewed 7/28/2011 PC Reviewed 9/7/2011 ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165-401.02 Permitted uses. DD. Libraries EE. Public Buildings. Part 402 — RP Residential Performance District § 165-402.01 Intent. § 165-402.02 Permitted uses. B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the following uses: 11 Libraries, and museums. (14) Public Buildings.