The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 03-17-10 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia March 17, 2010 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab) 2) January 6, 2010 Minutes and February 3, 2010 Minutes ................................................. (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment — Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan and Northeast Land Use Plan — Modifications to the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation in the vicinity of Route 11 North, to include the removal of areas of DSA and to reflect recently approved development projects. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) 6) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VII Overlay Districts, Part 703 HA Historic Area Overlay, 165-703.04 General Regulations, 165-703.05 Guidelines for New Construction or Alterations, and 165-703.06 Administration - Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance for the general regulations, administration and the addition of guidelines for new construction/alterations. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) COMMISISON DISCUSSION 7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 604 B3 Industrial Transition District, 165-604.03 Conditional Uses; Part 606 M1 Light Industrial District, 165-606.03 Conditional Uses and Part 607 M2 Industrial General District, 165-607.03 Conditional Uses; and Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.24 Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking — Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance to include truck parking in the 133, M 1 and M2 Districts. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 609 HE Higher Education District, 165-609.03 Yard and Design Requirements and 165-609.04 Buffers and Screening — Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance to increase the height and revise the design requirements in the HE District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (E) 9) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 607 M1 Light Industrial District, 165-606.01 Intent — Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance to include battery manufacturing in the M1 District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Other C �] MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 6, 2010. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/ Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; 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 Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the January 6, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS FOR 2010 The Secretary to the Planning Commission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, presided over the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2010. Election of June M. Wilmot, Chairman for 2010 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2010 calendar year. The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2587 Minutes of January 6, 2010 -2- A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2010. Election of Roger L Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2010 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chairman for the 2010 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Madagan, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2010. Election of Eric R Lawrence Secretary for 2010 Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission. The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, that by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2010. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2010 Planning Commission and Committees Upon motion made by Corranissioner K iz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, Frederick County Planning Commission Page Y -N95 Minutes of January 6, 2010 -3 - BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building. In addition, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee shall meet the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and the Development Review and Regulations Committee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room_ Committee Assignments for 2010 Regarding committee assignments for the calendar year of 2010, Chairman Wilmot asked the Planning Commission members to remain in their current committee assignments until she had the opportunity to communicate with everyone individually and determine if everyone is satisfied with their particular role. Chairman Wilmot next announced the following liaisons: Transportation Committee, Commissioner Kriz with Commissioner Oates as his alternate; Historic Resources Advisory Board, Commissioner Oates with Commissioner Kriz as his alternate; Economic Development Commission, Commissioner Madagan; Sanitation Authority, Commissioner Unger; and Conservation Easement Authority, Commissioner Triplett. Bylaws for 2010 Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, presented the Planning Commission Bylaws for 2010. Mr. Lawrence said there was one suggested change on Page 8, Section 8-3-9-1, Item D. He explained that instead of the wording, "...within 21 days," the team was re -written to state, "...not less than 21 days." He noted that aside from this revision, the content of both the Bylaws and the Rules and Responsibilities are consistent with what the Planning Commission reviewed last month. The Planning Commission unanimously approved of the wording change on Page 8, Section 8-3-9-1, Item D, as presented by Mr. Lawrence. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously adopt the Planning Commission's Bylaws for the calendar year of 2010, with the revision presented by the Secretary. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the November 4, 2009 meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2589 Minutes of January 6, 2010 -4 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) — 12/14/09 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the CPPC reviewed and discussed the 2010-2011 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) with the various departments, agencies, and school system. Commissioner Kriz commented about the much improved quality of the CIP. Transportation Committee - 12/21/09 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed three items: 1) provided a positive recommendation for a Resolution of Support for the Valley Connector Bus Service; 2) provided a request to transfer a surplus of $414,359 from the Warrior Drive project to the Tevis Street Extension project; and a request to transfer $100,000 from a Route 50 East project, which will be paid for by Governor's Hill proffers, to a ramp extension project on Route 11 at I-81, Exit 317, 3) adoption of the meeting calendar for 2010. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak_ PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application #06-09 of Jordan Springs Property to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #10-01 for 10.33 acres of land zoned B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone. This revision is intended to add permitted uses on the site. The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road. The property is further identified by P.I.N.s 44-A-294 and 44-A- 294A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this application is a proffer amendment for the Jordan Springs property which was originally rezoned in 2001. Ms. Perkins said this is a 10.33 - Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2590 Minutes of January 6, 2010 -5 - acre site, zoned B2, with a HA (Historic Area) Overlay. She said the proffer revision is intended to add a couple of permitted uses to the site. Ms. Perkins noted that the proposed proffer amendment is necessary to resolve existing violations on the property concerning uses being conducted on the site which are not permitted under the current proffer statement. Ms. Perkins explained that the original 2001 proffer allowed for health services, legal services, engineering and accounting research management and related services, and general business offices, as well as residential uses accessory to the allowed business uses. She said the revised proffer seeks to add, in addition to the 2001 uses, museums, eating and drinking places, exposition operations, and theatrical producers, and miscellaneous theatrical services. Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr., with Harrison & Johnston, PLC, was representing the applicant and owners of the Historic Jordan Springs Property, Greig D. W. Aitken and Tome M. Wallace, husband and wife. Mr. Pettler was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application #06-09 of Jordan Springs Property as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application 406-09 of the Jordan Springs Property, located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #10-01 consisting of 10.33 acres of land, zoned B2 (General Business) District, with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone, and is intended to add permitted uses on the site, including museums, eating and drinking places, exposition operations, and theatrical producers and miscellaneous theatrical services, in addition to the uses previously approved in 2001. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent; Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting.) Rezoning Application 909-09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and manufacturing uses. The properties are located on the north side of Redbud Road (Rt. 661), the east side of CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), and south of McCanns Road (Rt. 838). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 43- A-158, 44-A-25, and 44-A-26 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Oates stated that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2591 Minutes of January 6, 2010 Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning at their meeting of November 4, 2009, at which time the rezoning was tabled. Mr. Ruddy provided the Commission with a summary of events to date and he reviewed the remaining unresolved issues. Those items that staff believed had not been fully addressed included the issue of the proposed rezoning being inconsistent with the Land Use Plan; the potential impacts associated with more intensive use of the properties; and the recommendations of the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board). Deputy Planning Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported on the remaining, unresolved Route 37 transportation issues, which included: Route 37 corridor width remains at 225 feet, rather than the 350 feet as voted on by the Board of Supervisors; the need for an accelerated design time line to meet the requirements of the proffer, which called for full design approval within five years; and the corridor shown on the GDP does not match up with the Board's adopted corridor for Route 37, particularly when the ramps are involved. Regarding Route 11, Mr. Bishop said he has discussed with the applicant a number of ways they could partner with the County to address issues; specifically, a possible connection from existing Redbud Road up to Snowden Bridge Boulevard which would allow the County, should funds become available, to relocate the I-81 northbound exit ramp onto Route 11 over to the existing Redbud Road connection. He said this would provide the opportunity to remove one of the signals and improve the spacing and alignment in that area. In addition, Mr. Bishop raised the issue of bicycle facility connectivity. He said there are bicycle accommodations in Snowden Bridge, in the Rutherford Crossing development, and within the battlefield itself, this application sits within the center of these other developments and the County would possibly be missing an important opportunity to make those connections through this property. The final issue raised by Mr. Bishop was the proffered entrance location by others, which he anticipated to mean VDOT and/or the County, upon construction of Route 37. He said the applicant has proffered three entrances along Snowden Boulevard and the proffer allows for one of the entrances to be relocated upon the implementation of Route 37 and its associated interchange with Snowden Bridge Boulevard. However, Mr. Bishop noted that it allows the entrance to be relocated to the east, which is in the Snowden Bridge development, for which proffers on this development do not apply. Mr. Bishop said he is looking for an agreement or easement for this when it comes to pass. He said the day will come when the entrance will need to be relocated and it will not be able to be easily done in the middle of constructing the needed interchange. Commissioner Unger had questions about the timeline issue on the design for Route 37; he was concerned about holding up a project while the County determines what the appropriate number of years would be for the applicant to wait until the County has the design work completed. Commissioner Thomas noted that the 225 feet dedication by the applicant was indefmite; however, the difference between the 225 feet and 350 feet was what was on the time line. Commissioner Thomas believed the decision on how much right-of-way was needed for the corridor could be made by the County with a level of design that was conceptual or possibly a detailed master development plan. The design would be one that VDOT could take to FHA to get an exception for the interchange. In addition, he said the centerline of Route 37 would need to be set through the right-of-way. Commissioner Thomas asked the staff if they could estimate what the cost would be to produce that level of design. He was suggesting that the developer may want to consider taking on that effort to move things forward. He said the County would then have an idea of where Route 37 would be in the 350 -foot corridor and could tell the developer how much footage was actually needed, possibly freeing up the remainder of footage back to the developer. Commissioner Thomas said thus would clih,hinaie the eight-year sunset clause and the County would have the land needed to construct Route 37 through there. Commissioner Thomas said he thought this was a good project, but he did not want to see costs transferred to County taxpayers. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2592 Minutes of January 6, 2010 -7 - Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing the applicant, Graystone Corporation of Virginia. Mr. Wyatt began by addressing the issue of compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and he reiterated the position he took at the Planning Commission's previous meeting. He said in viewing the County's Northeast Land Use Plan, the County has designated this area as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). He said the Planned Unit Development concept is to create land uses that work in harmony, promoting the opportunity to live, work, and play. Considering this area as a whole, Mr. Wyatt said the Snowden Bridge project provides the residential element of the PUD, the elementary school site and the public park provides the public element, and the commercial service provides minor land bay employment. He said the element missing from the Snowden Bridge project is a major commercial and service component that would provide employment opportunities. He said the R4 District provides the potential for up to 50% of a PUD land area to be in employment -type use and that is where this project, the Graystone Corporation, fits into that niche. Mr. Wyatt next addressed transportation and he began by showing a Powerpoint display with a color -coded representation of the level of service (LOS) impacts to this area both with the proposed project and without it. The first display showed the background traffic impacts including all projects approved, but not yet built out, and depicted the intersections along the Route 11 corridor and the I-81 corridor. He noted manageable traffic with some problem spots such as Welltown, Old Charlestown Road, and the off -ramp at I-81, but all-in-all, it was not a grid -lock situation. Mr_ Wyatt said after factoring in the applicant's project, at build -out and with the Route 37 dedication, the mainline corridor for their project to get to Route 37 or Route 11, functions very well and the overall impact to the Route 11 corridor is no different than with the background impacts. He said if the two scenarios are placed side- by-side, Route 37 becomes an important component because it serves its purpose in creating negligible degradation of service. Mr. Wyatt said in light of the comments received at the November 4, 2009, Commission meeting, regarding additional square footages, FARs, and building heights, the applicant has removed those items from the proffer statement. Revisions were also made to the proffer to accommodate the comments from the County Attorney. Mr. Wyatt said the Planning Staff provided the applicant with a model run from the County's Development Impact Model and the rezoning provides the County with cash resources through tax revenues throughout the life of the project. He said the 20 -year outlook projected a $40 million cash positive and is a significant economic development boost for the County. Lastly, Mr. Wyatt talked about the remaining issues from the November Commission meeting and for the final proffer statement that will be considered through another public hearing process at the Board of Supervisors level. Mr. Wyatt said VDOT and staff were of the opinion that if an interchange is sought for this location, which the owners agree is a good for all parties, there is the possibility that a design exception will need to be sought; in which case, an elevated interchange over Snowden Bridge Boulevard will be needed, along with collector/distributor road systems. He said a more expansive right-of-way will be needed because of this. Mr. Wyatt said the owners would like to work in a partnership effort and certainly want to make sure the right-of-way needed is available. Therefore, the owners will commit to the 350 feet of right-of-way needed for the main line and, the 800 -foot wide area for the interchange will remain within the existing proffer as well. He said the owners have stated that whatever right-of-way is not needed, they would like returned for development. Regarding the time line discussion for the Route 37 design, Mr. Wyatt said it was important for this industrial and office park project to have direct access to Route 37 and facilitate traffic movement to I-81. Referring to previous design drawings done for Route 37 in years past, he believed a manageable design could be accomplished within the time frame suggested; however, to make sure the County has an opportunity to explore a way Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2593 Minutes of January 6, 2010 ME to finance the design, whether it is a VDOT allocation, a Board of Supervisors' reimbursable allocation, or whether it is tapping some of the proffers from surrounding developments. He said if the partnership works, with the applicant's right-of-way and with an innovative way to obtain the money for the initial design, an eight-year window seems like a very manageable time frame to accomplish the design. Mr. Wyatt raised the issue with Redbud Road and the desire of the County to get the northbound off -ramp relocated. He believed the applicant had the ability to provide a 60 -foot right-of- way dedication to the County to be available within 90 days of a written request from the County. This arrangement would allow for a connecting street between Redbud and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Mr. Wyatt said if the applicant begins to build an access road to serve a land bay, the existing proffers already state that any internal street built as a private street has to be constructed to a vertical section that meets or exceeds VDOT requirements. Therefore, an existing right-of-way would be available overtop a road that already met design requirements. Mr. Wyatt believed this will help with the improvement to the Route 11 corridor and the I-81 off -ramp in that location. Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Wyatt if he would speak about the Historic Resources Advisory Board's (HRAB) comments and the archeological resource surveys. Mr. Wyatt said there was one resource on site identified by the Rural Landmarks Survey, the old Carter -Hardesty House, which is no longer on the property. He said the former location of that structure and its out -buildings is within the path of Route 37 and when Route 37 is built, an archeological survey would be conducted as a part of the environmental clearance check. Regarding impacts to historic resources, he said the property owner has placed a portion of the property under permanent easement. Mr. Wyatt said the owner is willing to provide a natural 100 -foot minimum buffer mitigation area, included within the proffer, for the area along Milburne Road, the significant connecting road between the battlefield at Second and Third Winchester; he said the County ordinance requires a 100'foot distance and landscape screening and the applicant will provide 1,600 trees along Milburne Road. Subsequently, where no buffering is required, the owners have offered to provide landscaping on the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) property, if they allow the applicant to come onto their property. Mr_ Wyatt said this does not mean SVBF would be giving the applicant land, but simply granting the applicant permission to go onto their land to plant. He also noted that the other part of the viewshed mitigation was agreeing not use taller structures or pursue increased FARs. Commissioner Unger asked about dedication of land for Redbud Road and who would construct the road. Mr. Wyatt said this was envisioned to be a part of the I-81 project and would create a state-wide benefit at the expense of a local street. He said funding for the project would relocate Redbud Road. He commented that the County missed a previous opportunity for relocation because they didn't have the land available; he said the applicant's right-of-way dedication is an attempt to eliminate the land issue in the future. VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, stated that a 30% design plan, identifying right- of-way needs, could possibly be achieved within five years. Mr. Ingram said the cost value would depend on FHA's determination as to how far the preliminary design needs to be extended; he estimated the cost to be over a half million dollars or closer to $650,000. He said VDOT would work in partnership with Greenway or any other engineering firm the developer chose to move this forward as quickly as possible. Mr. Ingram presumed variable right-of-way up to 350 feet will be needed, except in the interchange area; he said VDOT does not want more right-of-way than needed. Mr. Ingram expressed concerns regarding VDOT's future budget issues and how that could affect VDOT's ability to participate in projects. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2594 Minutes of January 6, 2010 sea Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this time. The following person came forward to speak: Mr. Denman Zirkle, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), stated that the SVBF submitted a comprehensive set of comments regarding the Graystone rezoning proposal at the Planning Commission's November 4, 2009 meeting and he wanted to follow up on those initial comments. Mr. Zirkle stated that the SVBF believed the Graystone rezoning application was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said the SVBF and its partners have invested more than $6 million to preserve the landscape in this area, much of which would be degraded by the development in this proposal. Mr. Zirkle stated that the M1 Zoning requested is also incompatible with the neighboring rural and agricultural landscape of the area. He said the more intensive use of the property will negatively impact the rural and historic character of the neighborhood; it will have impacts on the historic transportation corridor of Milburn Road; and it will impact the battlefields located along that corridor. Based on these impacts, Mr. Zirkle asked the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning. Commissioners had concerns about VDOT's limited transportation funds to do a concept design; they were concerned about the possibility, after the eight-year time frame, that the County may not have enough right-of-way and the taxpayers would have to buy additional land at an exorbitant cost. Commission members urged the applicant to provide the design documents for the Route 37 corridor to determine the path and the width needed in order to move the project forward; they believed a conceptual level of design may be sufficient for VDOT to take to the FHA for an exception for the interchange_ This would eliminate the eight-year sunset clause, the County would have the land needed to construct Route 37, and the applicant would know the amount of width needed and could move his project forward. Commission members believed the proposal fit well within the PUD and there was a need for industrial land in this area. A motion was made by Commissioner Ruckman, seconded by Commissioner Manuel, and unanimously passed to recommend approval of the rezoning application with the applicant's revised proffer including the anticipated transportation improvements_ The Commission stated that this recommendation was based on the expectation that the applicant's proffer statement will be revised to include those transportation impact mitigation items identified by the applicant in their presentation to the Planning Commission and that the complete, revised proffer be presented to the Board of Supervisors prior to the Board's consideration. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application 409-09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District for office and manufacturing uses with the applicant's revised proffer including the anticipated transportation improvements. This recommendation is based on the expectation that the applicant's proffer statement will be revised to include those transportation impact mitigation items identified by the applicant in their presentation to the Planning Commission and that the complete, revised proffer be presented to the Board of Supervisors prior to the Board's consideration. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained; Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) r WeFICK t.ounty riammng uommission Page 2595 Minutes of January 6, 2010 -10— COMMISSION DISCUSSION FREDERICK COUNTY 2010-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS PLAN (CIP Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) Executive Committee met with Frederick County's department and agency representatives to discuss their individual capital improvement project requests at their meeting on December 14, 2009, Mr. Ruddy said the CPPC reviewed and endorsed this year's CIP and found it in conformance with Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy said that particular focus was once again placed on enhancing the connection between the CIP and potential proffered contributions made with rezoning projects. Mr. Ruddy stated there are 73 projects in this year's CIP, including requests from County schools, parks and recreation, airport, library, county administration, fire and rescue, and individual fire and rescue departments. In particular, he pointed out for the Commission that the Department of Parks and Recreation has added three items to the CIP which improved the connection between the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the CIP, and proffered commitments from rezoning. He said for the first time, Parks and Recreation has made a distinction between community, neighborhood, and district parks, and they have supplied an additional map as well. Mr. Ruddy believed this change improves the CIP and continues to enforce the connection between the CIP and rezonings. Mr_ Ruddy next reviewed some of the various projects and maps with the Commission. Commissioner Thomas pointed out the section on Transportation and confirmed with staff that the project description for Route 37 should state, "Engineering and Construction," for the dollar amount listed. Mr. Ruddy replied this was the intent and agreed with the suggested change. No other issues or areas of concern were raised. The Commission endorsed the CIP as presented and agreed to forward it to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN — TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT Deputy Director -Transportation, Mr. John A. Bishop, reported that incorporating the transportation component into the Northeast Land Use Plan has been an ongoing process for some time; he said it was postponed for a while by the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) in attempts to acquire funding to conduct modeling. Mr. Bishop stated that the inclusion of this transportation component would be a step forward from previous land use plan updates. He said past updates consisted of identifying the new or updated land uses and associated transportation improvements, but the final modeling had not been a part of the process. Mr. Bishop said funding has now been secured through the MPO and this process is underway. Mr. Bishop reviewed the proposed improvements for the Commission as follows: 1) redesigning the I-81 Interchange at Hopewell Road into a split interchange connected by frontage roadways; the —Jnteit or. is to a.d :r. wetter dlsti�buuvu cf u.terchange traffic by adding an add�tivnai vvay access the interchange from Route 11; 2) a parallel road system to Route 11 which includes additional connections back to Route 11; the intention is to improve north/south connectivity without forcing vehicle trips back to Route 11; 3) additional crossings of 1-81; the intention is to better facilitate east/west travel Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2596 Minutes of January 6, 2010 across I-81, 4) improved access management; the intention is for improved level of service and safety with fewer lanes. Mr. Bishop commented that the modeling is currently taking place and Mr. Tim Stowe is conducting the modeling through a contract with the MPO. He said preliminary results are anticipated by the January 30, 2010, Planning Commission Retreat. Mr. Bishop said this was being presented for the Commission's information and no action was needed. CANCELLATION OF THE JANUARY 20 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no items for the Planning Commission's January 20, 2010, meeting. The Commission was unanimously in favor of canceling that meeting. Chairman Wilmot reminded all the members about the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat, to be held on Saturday, January 30, 2010, at Frederick County's Public Safety Center. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairnlan Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2597 Minutes of January 6, 2010 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 February 3, 2010. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee 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 Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the February 3, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting. INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY -APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS. J. STANLEY CROCKETT AND PHILIP E. LEMIEUX Chairman June Wilmot introduced the newly -appointed commissioner representing the Stonewall District, Mr. J. Stanley Crockett, and the newly -appointed commissioner representing the Red Bud District, Philip A. Lemieux. Chairman Wilmot welcomed the new commissioners on behalf of the entire Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2598 Minutes of February 3, 2010 -2— MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the December 2, 2009 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee — 01/25/10 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the following items: 1) Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Study: the Valley Mill access; the Sheetz access to Hwy 7 to Regency Drive and the undeveloped area behind the property; and potential Park and Ride areas; 2) Shady Elm Access Management Study Phase I1: increasing the size of the proposed Tasker Road Overpass to Hwy 11; a direct connection to the south from the I-81 ramp to the Tasker Road overpass; access to the roundabout or a shared access to Hwy I 1 from the undeveloped property to the east; and the elimination of the signal light at Commonwealth and Hwy 11; 3) Route 7/Valley Mill Area Transportation Alternatives: three alternatives were discussed; 4) MPO Long -Range Plan Update: a consensus was reached to provide good publicity for the next MPO public hearing so that more public input could be achieved; 5) Carmeuse application: support of a resolution for an application to the VDOT Railroad Fund for a unit train track and system installation for the Carmeuse plant near Middletown; it was recognized that this installation would eliminate of some truck traffic on roads in this vicinity. Committee Appointments Chairman Wilmot announced the members who would comprise the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) and the Comprehensive Policy Plan Committee (CPPC) for the upcoming year, 2010, as follows: DRRC: Planning Commissioners: Roger Thomas, Greg Unger, Larry Ambrogi, Gary Oates, Kevin Crosen; June Wilmot, ex -officio; Citizen Members: J. Banks, Back Creek District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Claus Bader, Red Bud District; Whit Wagner, Stonewall District; John Conrad, Top of Virginia Home Builders Association; and Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District. CPPC: Planning Commissioners (Executive Committee): George Kriz, Gary Oates, Christopher Mohn, Paige Manuel, Brian Madagan, Roger Thomas, ex -officio; June Wilmot, ex -officio; Retired Planning Commissioners (Executive Committee): Marjorie Copenhaver, Robert Morris, James Golladay, and John Light. Three Standing Committees of the CPPC: Public Facilities: Jim Golladay, Chairman; Marjorie Copenhaver; Jason Robertson, Parks & Recreation; Wayne Lee, Frederick County Schools; Uwe Weindel, Frederick County Sanitation Frederick County Planning Commission rage /-D7y Minutes of February 3, 2010 -3 - Authority; Joe Wilder, Department of Public Works, Trish Ridgeway, Handley Regional Library, and Tim Welch, Emergency Services. Land Use Group: Christopher Mohn, Chairman; Gary Oates, Sue Teal, citizen member, Evan Wyatt, citizen member; J. P. Carr, citizen member; Uwe Weidel, and Wayne Lee. Comprehensive Policy Plan Update: June Wilmot, Chairman; Christopher Mohn, Paige Manuel, Brian Madagan, Robert Morris, Diane Kerns, citizen member; and Patrick Sowers, citizen member. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #01-10 of Shenandoah Valley Westminster -Canterbury for an off -premise sign at 1379 North Frederick Pike. The property is located at the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 North) and Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Rt. 1318). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 53A -A-5 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the property is zoned B2 (Business General) District and the land use is retail. Mr. Cheran said this is at the CVS site at Route 522 North in Sunnyside. He commented that in 2008, a conditional use permit (CUP) was issued here for an ofd premise business sign for a single sign, no larger than 50 square feet. Mr. Cheran noted that this application is the result of a zoning violation because another new sign was added_ He said the CUP application before the Commission for consideration is for an illuminated free-standing sign of 15 feet in height and 150 square feet in total area with a combination of two signs. Mr. Cheran next read a list of conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Commissioner Unger inquired if the violation resulted from a visibility problem or whether any of the neighbors voiced concerns about the sign. Mr. Cheran replied no, he had not received any complaints from the neighbors nor had anyone voiced concerns about visibility. Commission. Representatives of Westminster -Canterbury were available to answer questions from the Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2600 Minutes of February 3, 2010 -4 - Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed_ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 401-10 of Shenandoah Valley Westminster -Canterbury for an off -premise sign at 1379 North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522 North), with the following conditions: The sign shall be properly maintained. 2. This illuminated off -premise business sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height and 150 square -feet in face area. 3. Only the Westminster -Canterbury sign shall be on this sign structure. 4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) 2010-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) FOR FREDERICK COUNTY. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various county departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the county's annual budget. An adopted CIP is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) Executive Committee met with Frederick County's department and agency representatives to discuss their individual capital improvement project requests at their meeting on December 14, 2009. Mr. Ruddy said the CPPC reviewed and endorsed this year's CIP and found it in conformance with Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy said that particular focus was once again placed on enhancing the connection between the CIP and potential proffered contributions made with rezoning projects. Mr. Ruddy stated there are 73 projects in this year's CIP, including requests from County schools, parks and recreation, airport, library, county administration, fire and rescue, and individual fire and rescue departments. In particular, he pointed out for the Commission that the Department of Parks and Recreation has added three items to the CIP which improved the connection between the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the CIP, and proffered commitments from rezoning. He said for the first time, Parks and Recreation has made a distinction between community, neighborhood, and district parks, and they have supplied an additional map as well. Mr. Ruddy believed this change improves the CIP and continues to enforce the connection between the CIP and rezonings. Mr. Ruddy next reviewed some of the various projects and ,��aps with d:e Com:nissien. Frederick County Planning Commission rage /-ov jL Minutes of February 3, 2010 -5 - Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Kriz commented that a year or two ago, individual fire and rescue companies put forth a capital equipment request so they could use proffer monies from rezonings; he said this is currently a part of the CIP. In addition, Commissioner Kriz noted the CPPC has formed a Community Facilities Subcommittee and those persons involved in the capital improvement projects are all members of that subcommittee. He said this is one area where all these members discuss priorities together and, hopefully, when one member identifies an area project, another member considers the possibility of dovetailing another needed project. Commissioner Kriz wanted the citizens of Frederick County to know that through these established mechanisms, the County is attempting to co -locate as many capital improvement projects as possible and to locate them in the most appropriate places. Commissioner Kriz neat made a motion to recommend approval of Frederick County's 2010-2011 CIP and to forward it to the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the 2010-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) FOR FREDERICK COUNTY. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various county departments and agencies_ The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. An adopted CIP is a component of Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 102 Amendments, 165-102.05 Impact Analysis; Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Part 801 Master Development Plans, 165-801.06 Preliminary Master Development Plan - Part 802 Site Plans, 165- 802.02 Site Plan Applications; Review; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article IV Subdivision Review Procedures, 144.12 Subdivision Design Plan — Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance to add references to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards for the rezoning, master development plan, site plan and subdivision design plan sections of the ordinance. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E_ Perkins, reported that this item is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, to include references for traffic impact analysis (TIA) standards that were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2009. Ms. Perkins said the amendments pertain to a number of sections, but ultimately contain references to the same standards. The standards are included with the rezoning, master development plan, site plan, subdivision, and design plan processes. Ms. Perkins said this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) in October of 2009 and the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. She said the Planning Commission discussed the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2602 Minutes of February 3, 2010 changes at their meeting on December 2, 2009 and agreed with the proposed amendments. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors discussed the amendments at their January 13, 2010, meeting and approved the item to be sent to public hearing. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Kriz stated that this amendment was discussed by the Transportation Committee for the past two -to -three years. Commissioner Kriz said the staff, along with citizen members, came to agreement that the individuals and developers affected by this amendment are now very satisfied with the proposed TIA standards. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Commission members. Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 102 Amendments, 165-102.05 Impact Analysis; Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Part 801 Master Development Plans, 165- 801.06 Preliminary Master Development Plan - Part 802 Site Plans, 165-802.02 Site Plan Applications; Review; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article IV Subdivision Review Procedures, 144.12 Subdivision Design Plan — Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance to add references to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards for the rezoning, master development plan, site plan and subdivision design plan sections of the ordinance. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION'S FEBRUARY 17 2010 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced the Planning Commission will meet at its regularly - scheduled time of 7:00 p.m. on February 17, 2010, at which time there will be a continuation of the retreat session that was abruptly cut short due to the snowstorm on January 30. Chairman Wilmot said the Planning Commission will take up the last section of the retreat agenda dealing with ordinances at 7:00 p.m., and then the Board will join the Commission at 7:30 to resume previous discussions. Frederick County Planning Commission ragu /_Uw Minutes of February 3, 2010 -7 - ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 7:25 p -m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2504 Minutes of February 3, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director COUNTY (if FREDERICK Depart -Hent of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/66S-6395 RE: Public Hearing - Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) Designation Modification; Route 11 North, Northeast Land Use Plan, in the vicinity of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park. DATE: March 2, 2010 At their January 23, 2010 meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed Staff to prepare an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan to remove several areas of Developmentally Sensitive Areas that were previously identified during earlier land use planning efforts in this part of Frederick County. Specifically, the Board directed staff to schedule a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to remove the developmentally sensitive area designation from the area bounded by: Route 37 to the north; Milburn Road to the east; Route 11 to the west; and Red Bud Road to the south. The following is a proposed Amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Policv Plan: Northeast Land Use Plan and Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, to modify to the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation in the vicinity of Route 11 North, to include the removal of areas of DSA and to reflect recently approved development projects, as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Enclosed with this agenda item is a copy of the original Northeast Land Use Plan, approved in 2003, and a copy of the modified 2003 North East Land Use Plan with the DSA modified as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Staff has also provided a close up version of the modified area for additional clarification. The Updated 2003 Northeast Land Use Plan is slightly different from the original Plan in that it has been updated to reflect those changes, and only those changes, that the Board of Supervisors have approved since the original 2003 approval of the Northeast Land Use Plan. These changes include an updated zoning layer reflecting all of the rezonings approved by the BOS, an updated SWSA and UDA boundary, and an updated Eastern Road Plan. No changes have been made to the text contained within the 2003 Northeast Land Use Plan. As the Board is aware, it is anticipated that a more significant update to the NELUP will occur during 2010. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) Designation Modification Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 March 2, 2010 The Board of Supervisors approval of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park rezoning included the consideration of the Developmentally Sensitive Areas in the vicinity of the project. The Planned Unit Development designation that exists on the property has been extended to cover the entire Graystone Property reflective of the Boards' approval of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park project. In those other areas where the DSA has been removed outside of the boundaries of the Graystone project, no new land use designation has been proposed. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on this modification to the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan; Northeast Land Use Plan and Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan to modify to the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation in the vicinity of Route 11 North would be appropriate. MTR/bad Attachments Streets Future Rt37 Bypass Urban Development Area LongRangeLandUse Industrial Historic\ DS REZ0909 Location 4.),,VSVVSA,%Residential Planned Unit Development Business Institutional EDBU X' - ti x x Z� W-*N 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles Amendment to Long Range Land Use 2007 ... E January 27, 2010 S Z N", fl -zl "x W-*N 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles Amendment to Long Range Land Use 2007 ... E January 27, 2010 S Frederick County Planning Department ®rt h Ne sst ans�lAdopted by Baard of Supervisors August 13, 2003 North East., Land Use Plan LeTf Levs! 1 Ridge: Hou 'e `"Yate.? I ;id' S¢9aoo/ t r1 O O. '2 r t r „/ Suow Nitk}, Przer dfoese j�. U 11 % C ( 9 671 r- \ y 1 ;r! , Cedar tfitt Corneur.. gy cu .r„oda Upf+` u3X ( 661 ^•-,.,.� It 1 g., rax ,.a w? 1 � �' r { _ - Y i _.. _ E.R. t;lavenr7er;rverse� �'-� -•-....,.�. ;� -., r t- r -t'� r.frr'�:. / r%: t r{ ! � fl` . `..fir ,r ",j�� „t � ''<^\ l k;cHr,+:a•7txssell house �:-', ; �.� - f .,�f '! 7, f I 1( �•.'+ ne `T--�.,� , J - All , /i rr a'” s !( 'vf K •'�' y-.1 b"'^•''/viy —i. -v 672 C4;fararr Norse j "". ' ".' en 1rF ; ria i#.8p'x,ytc - .� 4a r � .,t �. A t �,. ,r �' ,!, I 7 �t t 1'�- 672 f \ yy . rrrr, r q to ��.. Wegit-war SCIM.1 r -�\ L w .w h,aeer Nouse s R 5 �. Yi'rigiri-Teel: )iause� �'�, 1j 665 i � .-.' ' a�''iy",`" • '� ✓� " �',4 -�) !-JT!>iGi r � .. Jin � FF"„ / � �'` r r!' r t /�a > � - r f! �. ', ^^.m.."� '�. i� t '//� !/��/ p �. •,� ' � � J/ ri ff �� %,ft/ i - /! � `// _ •r ! f -. r {�:. �f� ::� t ,,�, ,rfr.�Cy :.' r� � j ,t�. ,/J - i _.�.` ///fff ; a� ♦ `a .."`•'`, r(;,! Lv-^ / �c ,,� }it '"' rj"->t tj 1. \ 't } k7- •r,��*. t YYl _ q aClcien r -47c .iwn Norse 4.'' `$ f^ � #. `r✓"' r ! &.. * k -p" f 4 ! try .'.. -, '+, `�� r . �" @. +•� � +11: � / �v .,..'I f � � r f �>/ f � / %l // f ' r, - - r' ,r I.idr(cs 664 <, � ��tr �l*,'rf , �% e',$°`s''�, . r .r°v;-�,. ;S. `v' �>./.'"'•l / .,. fiv �-�"rl 2 Niles Yom`. Legend Proposed Land Use Zoning }` , -` 9 .3iJ s _ o �•�'i , t 'jTr�" - Residential B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) 656 � Business B2 (Business, General Distrist) Industrial B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) r , A/1 , 0 '{ Planned Unit Development . _ EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Historic \ DSA HE (Higher Education District) •; jj iii ` , i'a•' , �� '/ j f:`( .. L ai•aa , rr t,:::r ri,, .::a ,_. J Eastern Road Plan Mt (Industrial, Light District) :- " . ;°j�.:,,,,,` j : New MajorArterial 7 M2 (Industrial, General District) ,r .' - >~�a '. ` l . _ ei4:+,�,-•„�,,,,_, �` �_ � '•, Improved MajorArterial MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) � _.. - �� _"'�>�-... jai �� New Minor Arterial MS(Me sea Support District) (Medical Improved MinorArtenal OM (Office -Manufacturing Park) 0111h4p New Major M ' CollectorR4 (Residential Planned Community District) t _, - r R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) r ` � �,led 3 Aliff Fy r' � �”` , :,-!")Improved Major Collector - `J: RA (Rural Area District) jrroo.;lan ! r �',-�• yNew Minor Collector RP Residential Performance District) ? Improved Minor Collector UDA N 0.0 Ramp sSW5A !Ik I t ` 820 RuralCommunityCenter _*E Parcels Frederick County Planning Department DSA Modification Adopted Board of Supervisors All Approved changes to o rth e a s t Land Use , August 133,, 2003 -Updated; March 3, 2010 the Comprehensive Plan since North Ease I nnrl "c Dl�n CA H ol r Louse Levz! � • .t�'Xorx-t;'fyre;8laea� ,i`,.-.-..-�, _•<.. � Ric�en FJouse� lnifle i,aiP Sciaao; ,; ..` 0 0.5 1 Miles ( _/ r""4.cuu.-Ek:1 rfisusP 669 ` ! �t Pat -r tF�r�su ! f 669 1 tttddd :, j{ r�.� jam-^ ",� � � —. 7! ; `•_ , 1 \ f. J G.,dar tillf Cmnuue 7ly +.'Dose ; 'T -Russ �\ ..../';` lye. '�,/. /. / ,h •!,. r ! �l\ 7 5. "�' T ?\\\ kTci4uzrcr-RusseN AL rJr f ~;S %XA t �+" �' +'yY x J',;,•t l --,111 i .dl..yf ee,.t;-t v , I � ,, � r� r / f -'�� f�-�_ ..��._ � r mL� r ., r / t � r'f.ti ' � •..� Fry t ,___ _"�r _ ', 665 ,a ` �:' ;•:a, P-.:+. F. 1+.::ter. _ / F p., �aa@.Y... " �t j / l>�'>✓ / ,r '� r r'rt ! j'-.jR,i. `_ J i h� ;f` ,f • y \ i�,;a<�'' � `�'r � / ,.,,ri,,� � /�}n _ �, r �1�� i k 663 / ''� r,,.«- '° 0 s .t`. CPeven' a 3c:Wa House J .%`.. ` v 'l x "l l �� \ `Y"i� ` % t! l.✓, E> r�/� fA >° r V7lF t. k � r ` % `' _ yY �7>�,1•I �-„/� _` 1/ /g: >>C,cd'y?�'rl'� ��" �,�artn:� •,,*; : f t!I ' } < ?'� � '��° ��sr!' i YZ \ \ t ,� •L ! .r% ., t i, t,rn- t y� * \ �.� t / F„W f f,, f _ r.— a ft Y:•+F 4, ✓ j .ter 1f1 / 1 t 37 • x i ,f , 'r '�I .' t I y f f o' > r -'t Land Use .; ' `—.�_i. ! I /y ✓ ,/ �� ✓ j ',fir a y,,. s rY{.. J G f `' �1.�`! ✓ ttti>r� r t� c� .m .t �, �r y�}`, y > :a'” >r ray .r > f > �J � � �'� f e Win tt ! �.� !- +, ✓` {lYtf �� V�-. a M. —J A r, 656 8 �/'' f �/ �661r 1 �.,Y /\\ j •. 66-59 a Legend ' 1 f rt 3 k £ '✓ / f /.; ` Proposed Land Use Eastern Road Plan 1. �f_, if r nemnrn:.r>7f � Residential - New Major Arterial } Business Improved MajorArterial Industrial New Minor Arterial Planned Unit Development Improved Minor Arterial Historic 1 DSA lr r r 6 New Major Collector "AUDASWSImproved Major Collector r Rural Communi )r Centers _ „>;,: New Minor Collector a _Brootcla»aj _-- �',-r+ RuralCommunityCenter Improved Minor Collector Parcels `' .,: Ramp N 626 - -_ w E 1 NortheastLand use Plan • • D COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner (` Subject: Public Hearing — HA Historic Area Overlay Zone Date: March 2, 2010 This Historic Area Overlay (HA) Zone was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November of 1991. This district was intended to enhance and aid in the preservation and protection of historic resources in the County. The current overlay zone contains criteria for establishing districts (rezoning process), criteria for determining historic significance, general regulations (revisions to be approved by the HRAB, demolition, sale) and administration. The current overlay zone does not contain any design criteria for development or alterations and, therefore, any landscaping, parking and the like would have to follow the regulations of the underlying zoning district. In 1995, a set of guidelines for new construction within the overlay zone was presented to the Board of Supervisors. These guidelines were not approved because it was felt they were too specific and, to date, no other changes have been proposed to the HA Zone. Staff is now proposing revisions to the HA Zone to address certain design elements for new construction within the zone, as well as other minor updates and revisions. Specifically, the revisions and additions include: revisions to the general regulations, addition of guidelines for construction or alterations, and additions to the administration section. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed this ordinance amendment at their September 15, 2009 meeting. The HRAB requested minor changes to the ordinance at the meeting. Those changes were made and sent out to the group, and the changes were then endorsed. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on October 22, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed the changes at their meeting on December 2, 2009. The Planning Commission agreed with the proposed amendment and recommended that the changes be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their December 9, 2009 and February 24, 2010 meetings. At the December meeting, the Board expressed concern about the level of control the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) was provided, and in some cases felt the existing ordinance granted the HRAB with too much control over the development of properties within the HA Zone. In an effort to clarify the HRAB's involvement with the HA Zone, staff outlined the HRAB's duties for the Board, which are as follows: The HRAB is tasked with approving the compatibility of construction, reconstruction or significant alterations to structures within the HA Zone. If proposals are deemed compatible, the HRAB issues a certificate of appropriateness for the development. The HRAB may impose restrictions for the purpose of preventing development incompatible with the historic aspects of the area. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: HA Historic Overlay Zone Page 2 March 2, 2010 • The HRAB is tasked with reviewing proposals to demolish contributing structures with the HA Zone. If deemed appropriate to demolish a structure, the HRAB will issue a certificate of appropriateness. • The HRAB is tasked with reviewing proposals to relocate landmarks or structures within the HA Zone. If the relocation is deemed appropriate, the HRAB will issue a certificate of appropriateness. • The HRAB is tasked with reviewing the permitted uses within the HA Zone. Generally, the permitted uses follow the underlying zoning district, unless further restricted by the HRAB and then adopted by the Board of Supervisors. • The HRAB must review all proposed development within the HA Zone. It should be noted that the HA Zone is a voluntary zone and there is currently only one area in the County with this overlay. It should be noted that while the HRAB does have a large amount of involvement within the HA Zone, the Board of Supervisors has the ultimate control as specified in the Administration portion of the ordinance (§ 165-703.06). If the HRAB were to disapprove any application to construct, alter, relocate or demolish a site within the HA Zone, the applicant has the ability to appeal that denial to the Board of Supervisors. The Board could choose to agree with the HRAB's denial or overturn the denial and approve the request. The attached document shows the existing Ordinance 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 italics and deletions are shown with a strikethrough. CEP/bad ARTICLE VII OVERLAY DISTRICTS Part 703 — HA Historic Area Overlay Zone § 165-703.01 Intent. DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 PC Endorsed 12/2/2009 BOS Discussed 2/24/2010 The HA Historic Area Overlay Zone is intended to protect, enhance and aid in the perpetuation of especially noteworthy examples or elements of Frederick County's cultural, social, economic, religious, political, agricultural, military, industrial or architectural history in order to: A. Foster civic pride and an appreciation for historic values. B. Maintain and improve property values by providing incentives for upkeep and rehabilitation. C. Protect and enhance the County's attractiveness to tourists and visitors. D. Provide for the education and general welfare of the people of the County. E. Encourage nomination of qualified historic properties to the state and national registers. § 165-703.02 Establishing overlay boundaries. HA Zones may be created by amending the Zoning Chapter as provided for in Article I of this chapter. Following a public hearing, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) may initiate a proposal to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for amendments, including the establishment of HA Zones and the revision of existing HA Zones. A proposal for such amendment(s) may also be submitted by residents of an area that wish it to be designated as an historic area. A. The HRAB or applicant shall submit a report to support the proposed amendment. The report shall suggest the historic boundaries as well as describe the historic and/or architectural significance of the buildings, structures or sites to be protected, current planning affecting the area, present development trends and conditions in the area and the public objectives for preservation. B. A public hearing shall be held by the Board of Supervisors prior to adoption of a proposed zone. Notice shall be sent to all property owners within the boundaries of the proposed zone, indicating the time and place of the public hearing. The notice shall also state that residents may express their opposition to the proposed district in writing. The Board of Supervisors shall alter the boundaries of the proposed zone to exclude those property owners expressing opposition. C. Any area to be designated as an HA Zone shall in fact include landmarks, buildings, structures or sites determined to be of historical and/or architectural significance. All stated recommendations of the HRAB which supplement or modify the general regulations of this article may be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and applied to the zone created. D. At the time an overlay zone is established, the Board of Supervisors may create an additional position and appoint a member to the HRAB. The member appointed shall be the owner of property within the newly established zone and shall serve a term of two years. 1 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 PC Endorsed 12/2/2009 BOS Discussed 2/24/2010 § 165-703.03 Criteria for determining historic significance. The significance of an historic area shall be based on cultural, architectural and historical factors and shall be documented in a written report, which shall include a discussion of the following: A. Architectural style. 1) Presence of distinguishing characteristics of a recognized style. 2) Significance of architectural design. 3) Scale and/or interrelationship of structures and/or environmental features. 4) Significant patterns of development. S) Quality of workmanship. 6) Amount of surviving original material. 7) Original location and/or use. 8) Remaining outbuildings or dependencies. 9) Surrounding environment, gardens, landscaping and walks. 10) Overall aesthetic quality. 11) Original integrity of the structure and its details. B. Historic and/or cultural significance. 1) Association with historic person. 2) Association with historic events. 3) Work of leading architect or master craftsman. 4) Site or structure of cultural significance. C. Additional information. 1) A description of existing structures and uses likely to have an adverse effect on the character of the district, including those near and visually related to the district, with maps, photographs and other data indicating the reasons for such an effect. P) DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 PC Endorsed 12/2/2009 805 Discussed 2/24/2010 2) A list of structures within the zone which notes which structures are contributing and which are not. Surviving building types and structures not historic in themselves but adding to the character of an historic area need to be looked at as potentially deserving preservation. 3) An analysis of lands not occupied by structures, including lands near and visually related to the district. For public lands, ownership, use and location shall be indicated. For private lands, assessed valuation shall be added as well as existing zoning and planned land use. 4) Recommendations concerning supplemental regulations to be applied to the historic area under consideration for the purpose of preventing changes which are incompatible with the buildings, structures or sites to be preserved. Such regulations may include permitted and prohibited principal and accessory uses and structures, minimum lot and yard requirements, maximum lot coverage by all buildings, maximum height of structures, off-street parking and loading requirements, control of signs and exterior illumination and the control of significant exterior alterations to existing buildings. § 165-703.04 General regulations. Within the Historic Area Overlay Zone, these regulations shall apply: A. New construction, reconstruction and significant exterior alterations. No building or structure, including signs, shall be erected, reconstructed or substantially altered in exterior appearance unless the HRAB approves of the proposed activity's compatibility with the historic, cultural and/or architectural aspects of the zone and issues a certificate of appropriateness. All requests for construction, reconstruction and si ni cant exterior alterations Presented to the HRAB shall be in conformance with § 365-703.05 Guidelines for new construction and alterations. B. Matters to be considered in passing upon the appropriateness of construction, reconstruction or significant exterior alteration of buildings or structures by the HRAB. The HRAB shall not consider interior alterations and shall only impose restrictions for the purpose of preventing development incompatible with the historic aspects of the area. C. The HRAB shall consider the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the following in evaluating the appropriateness of architectural features: (1) The extent to which the proposed action will affect the overall character and continuity of the area. (2) Whether elements of the general design, such as scale, height and proportion of the proposed work are visually compatible with the surrounding area. (3) Whether the texture and materials proposed are compatible with existing structures in the area. D. Demolition. No contributing building or structure within any HA Zone shall be demolished or removed, until a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the HRAB. The demolition or removal of a noncontributing structure may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator. E. Matters to be considered in determining whether to grant a permit for razing or demolition. The HRAB shall consider any and all of the following criteria: 3 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 PC Endorsed 12/2/2009 BOS Discussed 2/24/2010 1) Would the Ferneval be detFirnental to the public ;„+,,. est? is the historic resource of such architectural, cultural or historical interest that its removal would be detrimental to the public interest? 2) Could the building only be reproduced at great expense or difficulty due to its unique or unusual texture, material or design? 3) Would demolition of the structure result in the loss of a significant historic place or resource in Frederick County? F. Offer for sale. The owner of a building, structure or site in a historic district shall, by right, be entitled to demolish the same, provided that: 1) The property owner has applied for a demolition permit. 2) The property owner has made a bona fide offer to sell the structure and land on which it is located to an individual or group which makes reasonable assurances that it will preserve the landmark. The property shall be offered at a price reasonably related to its fair market value as determined by an independent appraisal for the period established by the schedule below: Time Period (months) Asking Price 3 Less than $25,000 4 Between $25,000 and $40,000 5 Between $40,000 and $55,000 6 Between $55,000 and $75,000 7 Between $75,000 and $90,000 12 Over $90,000 G. Hazardous buildings or structures can be demolished without consideration by HRAB with written approval of the Zoning Administrator, stating the conditions which justify the demolition. H. Moving or relocation. No landmark, building or structure within a district shall be removed or relocated if the move would be detrimental to the public interest or the historic integrity of the structure unless approved by the HRAB. I. Uses permitted. Within the Historic Area Overlay Zone, general regulations and permitted uses shall be the same as provided within the respective underlying zoning districts except where such regulations are modified or amended by recommendation of the HRAB and adoption of the Board of Supervisors. 4 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 PC Endorsed 12/2/2009 BOS Discussed 2/24/2010 Exceptions. Where the strict interpretation of these regulations creates an undue hardship, the HRAB may make recommendations for reasonable exemptive relief. §165-703.05. Guidelines for new construction or alterations. A. New construction should speak of the historical era within the particular HA Overlay Zone and should not seek to replicate or reproduce existing eatures but complement the existing historic architecture and character. Franchise architecture should be avoided in HA Overlay Zones. All new construction should protect and Preserve significant archeological resources. The HRAB may use reasonable discretion in determining an applicant's degree of compliance, as long as a proposed desf n is consistent with the purpose and intent of the HA Zone. B. New construction should maintain a height and scale which is compatible with ad"acent buildings and other existing structures in the historic area. C. Items such as mechanical a ui ment meters transformers. HVAC equipment and dum sters should be visually screened from public view. D. Freestanding signage shall conform to the requirements of §165-201.06. Wall mounted signs shall be limited to twenty eet in height above arade and only one building mounted sin not to exceed 50 square feet shall be permitted per buildina face. E. Parking areas should be designed to maintain the integrity of an area's historic nature by minimizing the dominance of the automobile and reducina the visual impact of parkingareas. Parking areas should be laced as to not de-emphasize the main structures in the HA Overlay Zone. Parking areas within an HA Zone shall conform to the parking space and landscaping requirements of 165-202.01 but shall not be sub'ect to the surface materials and curbs and gutters requirements. Parkina areas within HA Zones shall be permitted to utilize brick pavers. reinforced gravels stems or similar materials so Iona as a dust -free environment is maintained. Parking surfaces comprised solely of un orti fed gross areas are not acceptable. § 165-703.05 06 Administration. A. Zoning Administrator. They Zoning Administrator shall not authorize a permit for any erection, reconstruction, significant exterior alteration, demolition or razing of a building, structure or site in the HA Historic Area Overlay Zone until the same has been approved and a certificate of appropriateness issued by the HRAB, following the procedures set forth below. B. Upon receipt of an application for such a permit in the Historic Area Overlay Zone, the Zoning Administrator shall follow the procedures below: 1) A copy of the application for such a permit, together with a copy of the site plan and the building plans and specifications filed by the applicant shall be forwarded to the HRAB. 2) A file of all such applications and related materials shall be maintained. 5 DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009 PC Endorsed 12/2/2009 BOS Discussed 2/24/2010 C. Materials to be submitted for review. Twelve copies of all materials prepared in relation to the application shall be submitted by the applicant. The Zoning Administrator or the HRAB may require submission of any or all of the following: architectural plans, site plans, landscaping plans, design for proposed signs with appropriate detail as to character, proposed exterior lighting arrangements, elevations of all portions of structure with important relationships to public view (with indications as to visual construction materials, design of doors and windows and relationships to adjoining structures) and such other exhibits and reports as are necessary for these determinations. D. Fees. The Board of Supervisors shall establish a schedule of fees for the submission and review of an application for a certificate of appropriateness. E. Other approvals required. In any case in which an applicant's proposal also requires the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals, approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be obtained prior to action by the HRAB. F. Action of the Historic Resources Advisory Board. 1. The HRAB shall return, within 60 days after submission of the application, its decision concerning granting a certificate of appropriateness for the erection, reconstruction, significant exterior alteration, restoration, razing or demolition or relocation of all or part of any building within the HA Zone. The HRAB shall apply the following criteria for its evaluation ot any application: a) Risk of substantial alteration of the exterior features of a historic resource. b) Compatibility in character and nature with the historic architectural or cultural features of the historic overlay district. c) Exterior architectural features, including all signs. d) General design, scale and arrangement. e) Texture and material. f) The relationship of the size design and siting of any new or reconstructed structure to the landscape of the district. (-1?l If the HRAB grants a certificate of appropriateness, it shall authorize the Zoning Administrator to issue a permit for the work specified in the application. If the HRAB disapproves the application, the reasons shall be stated in writing and forwarded to the applicant, and the Zoning Administrator shall disapprove the application for the required permit. The disapproval shall indicate what changes in the plans and specifications would enable the proposal to meet the conditions for protecting and preserving the historical character of the HA Zone. If the applicant determines that he will make the suggested changes, he shall so advise the HRAB in writing, which shall act accordingly. X31 In the case of disapproval, the application shall not be resubmitted for consideration until 12 months have elapsed from the date of disapproval unless the indicated changes in plans and specifications have been incorporated into the reapplication. The applicant may appeal the disapproval to the Board of Supervisors. A • C: '� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 54.0/655-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner WI) Subject: Discussion —Truck and Trailer Parking in the B3/M1 and M2 Districts Date: March 2, 2010 Staff has received a request to include tractor truck and tractor truck parking as a use in the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts. Specifically what is being requested is to allow a parking area to store trucks and trailers for an extended period of time as a primary use. The parking areas would possibly include a guard facility, but no other buildings or uses. Currently, this is not an allowed primary use and can only be done in conjunction and accessory/secondary to a permitted primary use (such as manufacturing/distribution/warehousing with a parking area on the same property to store their trucks and trailers). The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on February 25, 2010. The DRRC had an extensive discussion on the proposed use and recommended the following: the use be permitted as a primary use only through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit; the use added to the 133; revised surface material requirements (paving for truck parking and gravel for trailer storage); provision that no inoperable trucks/trailers be allowed; modified landscaping language; and provision that allows the Board of Supervisors to include additional conditions. With those changes, the DRRC recommended that the ordinance amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. The ordinance amendment attached to this memorandum would only allow truck and trailer parking as a primary use in the B3 (Industrial Transition), M 1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP option was included because the DRRC felt that this would allow the Board of Supervisors to permit the use in appropriate locations and not erode desirable industrial locations, and would also allow the revocation of the use if the site was being used improperly. Supplementary use regulations in the form of required conditions for the CUP have also been included. These conditions regulate surface material, inoperable trucks/trailers, prohibition of maintenance and gas facilities and landscaping. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and 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 bold underlined italics. CEP/bad 107 North rent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 604— B3 Industrial Transition District § 165-604.03. Conditional Uses. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: Conditional Uses Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking Part 606 — M1 Light Industrial District § 165-606.03. Conditional Uses. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: ATTACHMENT 1 DRRC Discussed 2/25/2010 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Conditional Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking -- Part 607 — M2 Industrial General District § 165-607.03. Conditional Uses. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: Conditional Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking -- Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165-204.24. Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking. Tractor truck and%r tractor truck trailer parking facilities in the B3 (Industrial Transition) M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts permitted as a primary use with a conditional use permit shall meet the following conditions: 1 ATTACHMENT 1 DRRC Discussed 2/25/2010 1. All areas utilized for the parking of tractor trucks shall meet the requirements of § 165- 202.01D. Areas utilized for the storage of trailers may utilize a gravel surface. 2. No inoperable tractor trucks or damaged trailers shall be stored on the site. 3. Fuel sales shall not be permitted. 4. Maintenance of trucks and trailers shall not be permitted. 5. Facilities shall be required to landscape the yard area within the front setback to provide for a double row of evergreen trees (minimum of two different species). The on -center distance between each tree in the staggered double row shall not exceed the widest width of the selected evergreen trees At no point shall the offset between each evergreen tree planted in the staagered double row be less than 90 degrees The side and rear yards shall be planted with a sinale row of evergreen trees that are planted a maximum of 40 feet on center. All trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height at the time of planting The Board of Supervisors may allow for alternative landscaping based on topography and/or adjacent land uses. 6. A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County. 7. The Board of Supervisors may require additional conditions as deemed necessary. L: MEMORANDUM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development To: Frederick County Planning Commission (-7 From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner t,IiA Subject: Discussion— Higher Education (HE) District Revisions Date: March 2, 2010 540/665-5651 +Ax: 540/665-6395 Staff has received a request to increase the maximum height requirements in the Higher Education (HE) Zoning District. Currently, the maximum height in the HE District is 45 feet. Staff has prepared an ordinance revision that addresses the height request along with other necessary ordinance revisions. Proposed changes are as follows: • Increase in the building height of 45 to 75 feet (subject to a BOS waiver). • Yard requirements. Revision to add yard and dimensional requirements. Modifications include adding front yard setbacks from primary and arterial highways, similar to other zoning districts. Added side and rear yard increases for structures over 45 feet in height. • Design requirements. Addition of a statement regarding lot size and depth/width and an addition of landscaped area and FAR requirements. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on February 25, 2010. The DRRC discussed the height increase portion of the ordinance and, while.they had no issue with the 75 foot building height, they did express concern if the structures were to be located adjacent to existing single family dwellings. The DRRC recommended that language be added to the amendment to only allow the height increase through a waiver granted by the Board of Supervisors. The DRRC had no other changes and recommended that the revised ordinance amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and 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: 11. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2. Letter of request from the applicant. CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 609 — HE Higher Education District § 165-609.01. Intent The HE Higher Education District is intended to permit institutions of higher education in appropriate areas. It is intended that uses in this district be properly separated from different uses in adjoining districts. § 165-609.02. Permitted uses. Structures to be erected or land to be used shall be for one or more of the following uses. A. Institutions of higher education. B. Utilities necessary to serve allowed uses, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes and meters. C. Accessory uses and structures. D. Off-street parking and loading. E. Business signs. F. Signs allowed in § 165-201.06B. G. Freestanding building entrance signs. § 165-609.03. Yard and Design requirements. A. Structures shall be located 50 feet from any primary or arterial highway and 35 feet from any highway, StFe ter- read right f way. collector or minor street. B. The minimum side yard for all structures shall be 15 feet. An additional foot from the side yard boundary shall be added to the minimum side yard setback for every foot that the height of the structure exceeds 45 feet when the adjacent use is single family residences. C. The minimum rear yard for all structures shall be 25 feet. An additional foot from the rear yard boundary shall be added to the minimum rear yard setback for every foot that the height of the structure exceeds 45 feet when the adjacent use is single family residences. D. There shall be no minimum lot size or minimum lot width or depth. E. Maximum Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) shall be 2.0. F. Minimum landscaped area (percentage of lot area) shall be 25 percent. § 165-609.04. Buffers and screening. A. The Planning Commission may require distance buffers, as defined in § 165-203.02A of this chapter, on lots which abut land in any residential district or land in other zoning districts which are predominantly residential in nature. The size and content of the distaRee buffers shall be based on the amount of separation needed. B. The Planning Commission may require landscaped screens or full landscaping, as defined by § 165-203.02B of this chapter, to separate uses in this district from adjoining residential uses and to achieve the intentions of this chapter. § 165-609.05. Height limitations. The maximum structure height shall be 45 feet The Board of Supervisors may waive the 45 foot height limitation provided that it will not negatively impact adjacent residential uses. In no case shall any structure exceed 75 feet in height. 0) SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY 1460 University Drive Winchester, VA 22601 January 18, 2010 Candice E. Perkins Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Commission Department of Planning and Development 1076 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Candice: Shenandoah University requests a change in §165-609.5, entitled Height Limitations, in the (HE) Higher Education District Zoning Ordinance. The current limitation is 45 feet in Frederick County. The current limitation for the City of Winchester is 75 feet. At this time, Shenandoah University requests a change in the county to an equivalent 75 feet to be congruent with the City. Shenandoah University is prepared to assist you with any means you deem appropriate. Sincere Jeff Davis Project Manager, Shenandoah University cc: File J L i I'J • C7 'tee COUNTY of FREDERICK i En - Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Discussion — Battery Manufacturing in the M1 District Date: March 3, 2010 Staff has received a request to include the manufacturing of storage batteries (portions of SIC 3 69 1) as a permitted use in the M 1 Zoning District. The M 1 District currently permits all of SIC 36 with the exception of SIC 3691 (Storage Batteries) and 3962 (Primary Batteries). The M2 District currently allows both SIC 3691 and SIC 3692. SIC 3691 includes the manufacturing of the following uses: • Alkaline cell storage batteries • Batteries, rechargeable • Lead acid batteries (storage batteries) • Nickel cadmium storage batteries • Storage batteries This proposed ordinance amendment would allow the following portions of SIC 3691 as a permitted use in the M1 District: • Alkaline cell storage batteries • Batteries, rechargeable • Nickel cadmium storage batteries • Storage batteries (excluding lead acid batteries, manufacturing). The following types of battery manufacturing would fall under the allowed portions of SIC: • Alkaline cell storage batteries (i.e., nickel -cadmium, nickel -iron, silver oxide -zinc) manufacturing • Batteries, rechargeable, manufacturing • Batteries, storage, manufacturing (except lead acid) • Marine storage batteries manufacturing • Nickel cadmium storage batteries manufacturing • Rechargeable battery packs made from purchased battery cells and housings • Rechargeable nickel cadmium (NICAD) batteries manufacturing • Storage batteries manufacturing (except lead acid) It should be noted that battery manufacturing is a target business by the Winchester -Frederick County Economic Development Commission (EDC). This industry is also part of the White House's push for green energy. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Battery Manufacturing Page 2 March 3, 2010 The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on February 25, 2010. The DRRC had concerns over the types of materials used in the battery manufacturing industry and the pollution emitted from the operation. The DRRC ultimately forwarded the amendment to the Planning Commission for discussion but wanted to see additional information on the manufacturing process to better understand it and to identify any environmental impacts. This additional information will be presented to the Planning Commission. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and 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 bold underlined italics. 2. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Group — 3961 CEP/bad ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 606 — M1 Light Industrial District § 165-606.01 Intent. DRRC Discussed 2/25/2010 M1 Light Industrial District. The intent of this district is to provide for a variety of light manufacturing, commercial office and heavy commercial uses in well-planned industrial settings. Uses are allowed which do not create noise, smoke, dust or other hazards. Uses are allowed which do not adversely affect nearby residential or business areas. Such industrial areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. § 165-606.02 Allowed Uses. Allowed Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Electronics and other electrical equipment and components, excluding the following: 36 sternage batteries 393 Lead acid batteries (storage batteries) 3691 Primary batteries 3692 232 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION Industry Group Industry 367 o No. ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES—Con. 3679 Electronic Components, Not Elsewhere Classified—Con. masers Crystals and crystal assemblies, radio Delay lines Harness assemblies for electronic use: wire and cable Headphones, radio Heads, recording for speech and musi- cal equipment Hermetic seals for electronic equip- ment Impedance conversion units, high fre- quency Liquid crystal displays Loads, electronic Microwave components Oscillators, except laboratory type Parametric amplifiers Passive repeaters Phonograph needle cartridges Phonograph needles Piezoelectric crystals Power supplies, static, and variable fre- quency Pulse forming networks Quartz crystals for electronic applica- tion Recording and playback heads, magnet- ic Recording heads for speech and musical equipment Rectifiers, electronic: except solid-state Resonant reed devices, electronic Rheostats, electronic Sockets, electronic tube Solenoids for electronic applications Static power supply converters for elec- tronic applications step positioners for transmitting equip- ment Styli, phonograph record cutting Switches, electronic Switches, stepping Transducers for use in measuring and testing instruments and equipments Tube retainers, electronic Tube spacers, mica Tube transformer assemblies used in firing electronic tubes Video triggers, except remote control television devices Voice controls Waveguides and fittings 369 MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 3691 Storage Batteries Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing storage batteries. Alkaline cell storage batteries Nickel cadmium storage batteries Batteries, rechargeable Storage batteries Lead acid batteries (storage batteries) 3692 Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing primary batteries, dry or wet. Batteries, primary: dry or wet Dry cell batteries, single and multiple cell 3694 Electrical Equipment for Internal Combustion Engines Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing electrical equipment for internal combustion engines. Important products of this industry include armatures, starting motors, alternators, and generators for automobiles and aircraft; and ignition apparatus for internal combustion engines, including spark plugs, magnetos, coils, and distributors. Alternators, motor vehicle Harness wiring sets for internal com- Armatures, motor vehicle bustion engines Ignition cable sets or wire assemblies Battery cable wiring sets for internal combustion engines for internal combustion engines Battery charging generators for inter- Ignition systems, high frequency and air - nal combustion engines Motors, starting: motor vehicle Breaker point sets, internal combustion craft Regulators, voltage: motor vehicle engine Coils, ignition: internal combustion en- Spark plugs for internal combustion en- gines Distributors, motor vehicle engine groes Voltage regulators, motor vehicle Generators, aircraft and motor vehicle