Loading...
PC 05-06-09 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia May 6, 2009 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) March 18, 2009 Minutes..................................................................................................(A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Revised Conditional Use Permit #02-09 for Leroy Harrison, to enable a property ownership transfer of an existing auto repair business. This property is located at 8365 North Frederick Pike (Route 522), and is identified with Property Identification Number 11-A-52 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (B) 6) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Subsection 82A District use regulations. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to add Veterinary Clinics as a permitted use in the B1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Planning Commission Bylaws Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (D) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 8) Recordation of Proffers Mrs. Perkins..........................................................................................•.......................... (E) 9) Other ]FILE COPY MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held int .� Board «+ Board Roor.1 of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in = Winchester, Virginia on March 18, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chainnan/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chaimian/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Moln, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; 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 Connnissioner Ours and seconded by Connnissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the March 18, 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Connnissioner Triplett and seconded by Connnissioner Ours, the Planning Corrunission unanimously approved the minutes of the January 21, 2009 meeting and the minutes of the February 18, 2009 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) — 02/26/09 Mtg. Connnissioner Unger announced a new member of the DRRC, Mr. Jay S. Banks of Back Creek District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 18, 2009 III IS N '• Page 2431 -9 - Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRC discussed the recordation of proffers. He said the DRRC is working on revisions to the zoning ordinance requiring proffers to be recorded along with property deeds. He said the DRRS also discussed revisions to Section 165-27 of the zoning ordinance regarding off-street parking and parking lots. Sanitation Authority — 3/17109 Mtg. Conunissioner Unger said the Sanitation Authority (SA) reported below normal rainfall for the last few months; the Anderson water plant is pumping about lmgd; a malfunction at this plant is anticipated to be fixed within a month; and the Diehl plants are pumping about 2.lmgd. Commissioner Unger said the SA is purchasing about 1.6-1.7mgd of water from the City of Winchester; the City is planning to increase their rates by 15%. Conunissioner Unger reported that the SA finished the waterline to Berkeley County, which is intended to be used for emergency purposes only. Commissioner Unger noted that the SA has applied for stimulus funds. Route 1l North Work Group — 3/13/09 Mtg. Connnissioner Oates reported that the work group reviewed land uses and received an update on transportation. He said they should be ready to present their study to the public iii Stonewall District ul mid May. Conuuissioner Oates said there will be another meeting on Friday morning, March 20. Transportation Committee— 3/02/09 Mtg. Connnnissioner Oates reported a joint meeting of the Transportation Committee and the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) where the transit expansion plans were studied. Commissioner Oates provided the following website for liose seeking additional information: ww w.winfredmpo.com. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 3/17/09 Mtg. Conmiissioner Ours reported the WPC recommended approval of a request by Adams -Nelson Management for a modification of their existing conditional use permit for the Old Town Event Center on Loudoun Street to expand uses, particularly during daytime hours. Commissioner Ours said the WPC also recommended approval of a rezoning from low-density residential to residential -office on Linden Drive, adjacent to the Winchester Medical Center. In addition, the WPC tabled a rezoning for a commercial property adjacent t:, the K -Mart store, behind Jiffy Lube. He commented the tabling was to allow additional time to work out logistics prior to public hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of March 18, 2009 Page 2432 -3- TAICS Conversion CommifteP Commnissioner Manuel reported that the NAICS Conversion Co:ninittee is in the final stages of their work and are fine tuning the final product. He said the committee members have been meeting by interactive email and expect completion of their work by March 31. 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 #01-09 for AT&T and Wesley Hensley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 -foot commercial telecommunications facility at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). This property is identified with P.I.N.s 43-A-130 and 43-A-132 in the Stonewall Magisterial District Action — Tabled for 28 days Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported this request is for a conditional use permit (CUP) to enable the construction of a 120 -foot, lattice -type commercial telecommunications facility. Mr. Cheran said the proposed tower location is on properties contained within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) as designated in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said this NET—UP component indicates there are Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) surrounding mid including this site. The objectives of the NELUP are to, "... ensure that the reconunendations of the Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan are implemented to the extent possible..." and to designate DSAS to "...protect potentially significant historic resources as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and to ensure that the HRAB reviews all development proposals which impact identified DSAs." Mr. Cheran pointed out that the general surrounding area of the proposed site contains areas of significant historical importance, including the Hackwood property, the Milburn Road corridor, and the Third Battle of Winchester study area. He said Frederick County has traditionally set a higher expectation for land use actions with regards to properties in and/or adjacent to DSAS. These perfonnance standards are to ensure that scenic areas and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. In addition, Mr. Cheran noted that the proposed site does not appear to qualify for a lattice -type facility. He explained that the zoning ordinance requires that all proposed new telecommunications facilities be monopole -type structures, particularly if the proposed location is adjacent to identified historic sites. He also noted that the proposed location is on property located in close vicinity to the 150 -acre industrially and commercially -zoned Rutherford Farm development. He said the Rutherford Fann development may provide satisfactory coverage for this applicant and future co -location opportunities in this area of Frederick County. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2433 Minutes of March 18, 2009 -4 - Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. of the firm, Harrison & Johnston, was representing the applicants in tl-ds request. Mr. Pettler introduced Psis. Christie Lowey with Dewberry, who assembled the application; Robert Ericksen, Real Estate Manager with AT&T; Kurt Oliver, coy=salta:.t for AT&T; and Mr. William Commerford and Mr. Mark Grace, both representing AT&T. Mr. Pettler first addressed the issue of a lattice tower versus a monopole tower and why they were pursuing the lattice -type tower. He said Section 165-48.6.B(2) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that lattice -type towers are permitted for areas located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and which are not adjacent to properties that are identified historic sites. Mr. Pettler said this site is located outside of the UDA and it is not "adjacent" to a historic site; he pointed out that future Route 37 cuts this property off from the battlefield areas. He said an enormous structure would have to be built for a monopole versus only a ten -foot by ten -foot structure for a lattice tower. In addition, the cost of construction for a monopole would be double of that for a lattice -type tower. It would also be cost -prohibitive for Emergency Management Services (EMS) or anyone else to co -locate on the monopole structure in the future. Mr. Pettler next addressed the DSA and NELUP issues. He said the Route 11 corridor is slated for future commercial development and already has significant existing commercial development. Regarding the staff's comment about locating the tower on the Rutherford's Farm property, Mr. Pettler stated that AT&T does not own any property within Rutherford's Farm. Addressing the possibility of placing the communications facility on the building that FEMA will occupy, Mr. Pettler stated that FEMA does not own the building they will occupy at Rutheford's Farm. He stated that considerable structural changes to the building would need to be done by the landlord in order to place the cornrnunications facility on top of the FEMA building. He said the numerous third -party issues they encountered created a stalemate in negotiations. Responding to a Planning Commissioner's question about possibly locating on the CoAperwood property, Mr. Pettler said the parcel was not large enough to accommodate a sufficient fall -zone area for a tower of this size. Mr. Pettler added there has been no citizen objections this request. He referred to a letter of support from David Lopez, Acting Branch Chief, for FEMA IT Operations, dated March 11, 2009. In the letter, Mr. Lopez states that, "...this communications link is critically important to FEMA's operations in Frederick County," and, "... it is essential to have fail-safe communications capability, particularly when disasters occur." Mr. Robert R. Ericksen, Real Estate Manager with AT&T, said AT&T is requesting the placement of a communications tower adjacent to AT&T's existing communications building at 2032 Martinsburg Pike. He said AT&T has chosen this location because of the existence of a network access point (POP). He noted that a 180 -degree fall zone is not required if the property is owned by the owner of the tower and the building is unmanned. Mr. Erick -sen said that because of the structural improvements that would be necessary and structural integrity issues, in addition to liability and legal issues, the parties reached a stalemate in negotiations in their attempts at placing the connmunications facility on top of the FEMA building. He said neither AT&T, nor FEMA owns the building or the property in Rutherford's Farm. Chairman Wilmot called for citizens comments at this point in the public hearing and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Earl Rittick, a resident at 2045 Martinsburg Pike, asked if the tower would fall on Route 11 if it happened to collapse. Mr. Pettler replied that it would not. No one else wished to speak and Chainnan Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2434 Minutes of March 18, 2009 0 N M V IT —j— Soiree members of the Planning Commission expressed their individual views that a monopole tower would be more visually obvious in this setting than a lattice -type tower; they noted that you could at least see through a lattice tower. Mr. Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director, stated that when the telecomm-nmications ordinance was adopted in the 1990's, it was concluded that the County preferred a monopole tower in Urban Areas because it was believed a monopole would more easily blend into the viet�vshed. Other Conirnissioners believed the proposed tower location was not an appropriate site because there was available commercial and industrially -zoned land across the street within the Rutherford development and because the HRAB's recominendation was that the proposed tower would cause a visual impact for the historic areas. The staff noted that portions of the Rutherford development were outside of the UDA and the HRAB's report had indicated that historical integrity on that side of Route 11 had already been lost. Coimnissioner Manuel said that he supported approval of the application as presented with a lattice -type tower. Coininissioner Manuel said there has been no opposition from the public, no opposition from neighbors, the applicant has made serious and genuine efforts to locate on the FEMA property and it's just not feasible or practical. He said the proposed tower would be located in a commercial and industrial area where these facilities are supposed to be located. In his opinion, a six-foot diameter monopole resembled a smoke stack, not a tree, and at least you could see through a lattice pole. He added that this area is slated for a four -lane interstate highway. Commissioner Oates recognized there was a need for this facility, especially by FEMA. Cominissioner Oates said the CUP before the Commission is site specific and they are requesting a lattice -type tower. Commissioner Oates said he was not in favor of a lattice -type tower and his view was that a monopole tower was much more aesthetically pleasing. He did not agree that this was the preferable place for the proposed tower; he said there was plenty of land near and around the FEMA building. He said if the tower was located in that direction, it most likely would not be seen from Route 11. Commissioner Oates agreed with the HRAB's recommendations that it would cause a visual impact on the core battlefield areas. Based on these comments, Conunissioner Oates made a motion to recommend denial of the CUP. This motion was seconded by Cornmissioner Ours. This motion failed, however, based on the following vote: YES (TO DENY): Ours, Thomas, Oates, Ruckman NO: Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Manuel, Ambrogi, Unger, Wilmot ABSTAIN: Watt (Note: Commissioner Kriz was absent from the meeting.) A new motion was made by Commissioner Ruckman to table the CUP application request for another 28 days because there are so many issues involved. Commissioner Ruckman commented that the proposed tower location is outside of the UDA and the County could require that it be a monopole -type tower. He said he would like to see the application revised. He also commented that the proposed tower would be in site of historical battlefields and it will impact the viewshed. Commissioner Ruckman said he would still like to see the tower relocated closer to the FEMA building where there are trees and buildings to visually shelter the tower. The motion to table for 28 days was seconded by Commissioner Oates and passed by a majority vote. Frederick County Planning Commissionn Page 2435 Minutes of March 18, 2009 U BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Comu-nission does hereby table Conditional Use Permit #01-09 for AT&T and Wesley Helsley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 -foot conunercial telecormnunications facility at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) for 28 days to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the application. The vote was as follows: YES (TABLE 28 DAB'S): Ambrogi, Manuel, Ruckman, Oates, Thomas, Ours, Wilmot NO: Unger, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn ABSTAIN: Watt (Note: Conunissioner Kriz was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning Application 401-09 of Silver Lake, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 238.96 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, and 131.06 acres from RA District to MS (Medical Support) District, with proffers, for commercial use and a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) use. The properties are located on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West), west of Retail Boulevard and east of Poor House Road (Route 654). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 52 -A -C, 52-A-50, 52 -A -50A, 52-A-52, and 52-A-63 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval With Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application is to rezone five parcels totaling 370.02 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the MS (Medical Support) and B2 (Business General) Districts with proffers for a Continuing Care Retirement Convnwiity and commercial land uses. Mr. Ruddy said this particular property was included in the 2006 update to the Rowid Hill Land Use Plan, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2007- He said the land use plan expanded the water and sewer boundaries surrounding this property and it also provided for an improved land use plan for the Round Hill community. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He said the proposed land uses are generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Mr. Ruddy said the Round Hill Land Use Plan reconunends that as land is developed over time and infrastructure extended, consideration should be given as to how development might contribute towards achieving the long-range goal of providing sewer to the core area of the Round Hill community. Furthermore, the Round Hill Land Use Plan encourages a variety of design principles for the Route 50 corridor and this application's proffer statement generally addresses the identified design standards. The Round Hill Plan also calls for a campus -style development and Mr_ Ruddy believed a greater amount of consideration could be provided to coordinate the conunercial portion of this project in the design layout; in particular, the building location, the site layout, and the design elements. He con-u„ented that the application should clearly demonstrate how it will achieve a campus -style development. In addition, the Round Hill Land Use Plan recommends that a new park be included with the development of this area. He said it was the staff's reconmlendation that an area larger than that currently shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) be provided in order to be consistent with the area shown in the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Frederick County Placer ing Conunission © Page 2436 Minutes of March 18, 2009 D -7— Regarding the transportation aspects of the proposal, Mr. Ruddy said the Rcmjnd Hill Land Use Plan _recoinmends regional transportation improvements along the Route 50 Corridor, as well as on the north side of the corridor which traverses through this project. He said this application addresses these transportation miprovements in a positive manner. Regarding the site access and design, Mr. Ruddy referred to the GDP and said it depicts the location of the internal road system serving this project. He said Spinning Wheel Lane, the project's major collector road, connects Route 50 through the site and connects with the existing road system to the rear of the Walmart Shopping Center. Silver Lake Drive provides an additional connection to Route 50, intersects with Spinning Wheel Lane, and it ultimately provides a potential connection to Poor House Road. Mr. Ruddy noted that the application provides for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the project and along the project's frontage with Route 50, along with pedestrian connections at the major intersections. He added that inter -parcel connectivity has been provided throughout the B2 portions, as development occurs. Mr. Ruddy next focused on potential impacts. He said the applicant's TIA has projected the build -out of this project within four phases. Beyond the four phases, there is no limitation upon the amount of conunercial development that could happen. Ultimately, the TIA assumes the total build -out of the continuing care retirement conununity on the MS District property; 583,050 square feet of commercial retail; and 494,600 square feet of office land use developed over a four-phase study. He said the applicant's transportation program is based upon a four -phased approach and is described in detail in the application and proffer statements as to which particular improvements go with each phase. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating this application provides for the urban four -lane divided section (U4D), but only for the portion of the collector road from Route 50 back to the internal intersection with Silver Lake Drive. Mr. Ruddy stated that the U41) typical section should be extended along the entire length of Spinning Wheel lane with the use of a landscaped median. He said the Round Hill Land Use Plan is specific about this ultimate road section. Mr. Ruddy said this development will have an impact on community facilities and services; however, the commercial component of the project will generate tax revenue for the County. In addition, he recognized the applicant's significant effort to address the fire and rescue coimnunity's facility impacts. He said the application provides for land dedicated to Frederick County for the development of a new fire and rescue station and support facilities serving the Round Hill Community; and, the GDP identifies three -to -four acres as a potential location for such a new fire and rescue facility. Additionally, he said the applicant has proffered to provide a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for the development of a new fire and rescue facility providing service to the Round Hill Community. It was noted that the applicant had not proffered any monetary contributions awned at mitigating the potential impact of the residential units on such community facilities as Parks and Recreation, Public Safety, Library, and General Government. Conunissioner Thomas noted that staff had suggested a greater amount of area be dedicated for the park; he asked what percentage greater would be more appropriate. Mr. Ruddy replied that the Round Hill Land Use Plan identifies a lake visible from Route 50 and a farm pond internal to the property; he said between the two is a large area of environmental features, including floodplains and wetlands. These features were identified during the crafti ig of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Mr. Ruddy suggested increasing the area greater than 10% and less than 100%, but certainly consistent with the environmental features and floodplain that are located in this area. Commissioner Oates referred to the staff's comment that the applicant should demonstrate how he will achieve a campus -style development; he asked the staff if they intended for design criteria to be included, additional landscaping, or some other criteria. Commissioner Oates said he would like to steer away from the typical box store within a sea of pavement and strive to create a nicer development. Muir. Ruddy said the Land Use Plan calls for additional thought and layout in the design and he believed this was needed within the area of commercial buildings. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2437 Minutes of March 18, 2009 DPD s Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, noted that the applicant had offered a substantial transportation package. Mr. Bishop said there is an extensive asphalt trail and pedestrian improvements network throughout the development and in most cases, it develops along with the associated roadways. Mr. Bishop described the transportation improvements associated with each phase of development in detail for the Commission. Mr_ Evan W. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing the Silver Lake rezoning request which included the Silver Lake commercial rezoning and the National Lutheran Home Medical Support District rezoning. Mr. Wyatt said the land uses, the transportation network, the provision of an opportunity for a new fire and rescue site, and the conversion of a public park into a passive open space area are all in conformance with the Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Wyatt proceeded to address the staffs outstanding issues, as follows: Regarding efforts to achieve a campus -style development, Mr. Wyatt saidthe applicant is proffering street trees along all major roads; an existing mature woodland area will be preserved along Spinning Wheel Lane; and the bases on monument signs will be consistently designed providing a subtle, but visually -recognizable structure throughout the project. He said major intersections on Route 50 will have crosswalks, pedestrian activation on traffic signals, widerground utilities, and proffered inter -parcel connectivity for the commercial uses. In addition, the 50 -foot landscaped strip along Route 50 and Spinning Wheel Lane will contain ornamental shrubs, street trees, and a hiker/biker trail along the entire frontage of the property_ Regarding the reconrnendation to provide a greater area for the park and protect environmental features, Mr. Wyatt said the green area was originally envisioned to be a county -owned public park; however, the Parks & Recreation Board decided against taking the land and it reverted back to a passive open space area. He said this passive open space area is not a public park, alt hough it has been equipped with amenities such as trails that link to Route 50, as well as the main parallel road to Route 50, Spinning Wheel Lane_ Additional areas of woodland preservation will be provided with the MDP. Regarding efforts to extend the U4D typical section along the entire length of Spinning Wheel Lane with the use of a landscaped median, Mr. Wyatt said the applicant is providing a landscaped raised median section from Route 50 back to the traffic circle; it transitions out of the traffic circle with some raised median and then continues as an urban section with four lanes, but does not have a raised grass median. He said the road improvement plan designed to tie into the retail is not a raised median, but a four -lane divided highway; he believed this design was consistent with what is perceived to be a campus -style development. It is recognized that this design is not consistent with what is called for in the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Addressing potential impacts associated with commercial development beyond that evaluated, Mr. Wyatt explained the use of color coding for the various road segments and hone it related to the project's phases of development. He said the color coding demonstrates phasing improvements, with lighter green to darker green in sequential order, and until every improvement associated with each phase is provided, the applicant is capped at a certain square footage of conmiercial along the way. For example, if the applicant has an opportunity to develop more than 180,000 square feet of retail use designated for Phase 1, the applicant would have to install all the improvements not only in the areas of very light green, but the next shade of green as well. Regarding the staff's comment that additional monetary contributions were not offered by the applicant for community facilities other than fire and rescue, Mr. Wyatt noted they have been working closely with the Sanitation Au#I- i`y and this project addresses the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan by contributing to the expansion of services further up the corridor towards the community center, as follows: 12 -inch water and sewer lines will be installed to satisfy future growth in the area, although the applicant's needs on site require only eight - inch water and sewer lines; the applicant will install a one -million gallon tank as opposed to a 600,000 -gallon water tank projected to be sufficient solely for the project's needs; and easements will be provided at no cost Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2438 Minutes of March 18, 2009 0 along the applicant's commercial properties within the SWSA for connectivity by adjacent properties. The water and sewer improvements will not be done right away, but will occur as development proceeds. Mr. Wyatt stated that a fire and rescue station site has been proffered, along with a commitment to provide road access and utilities, if it is used. In addition, he said there is a orae -million -dollar monetary proffer payable within five years of the fmal rezoning approval. Mr. Wyatt cormnented that the County's Fiscal Impact Model indicated a 3228 million -dollar positive impact to the County with the projected commercial uses and the independent living units associated with the CCRC'►rill pay real estate taxes, providuig another revenue source to the County. Commissioner Oates said that with regard to the campus -style setting, he was not looking for building placement, but more so for the applicant to go beyond the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for the parking areas, such as additional green area, open space, and more environmentally -friendly materials. Mr. Wyatt said that without a known layout detailing "There office buildings and retail will be located and the scale and size of the structures, it was difficult to commit to a certain percentage of green parking within a landbay. Mr. Wyatt said there will be broken up areas, green areas for parking, and small plaza areas, included on the MDP. Corrnmissioner Thomas said he would like to see an intent or commitment to a non -impervious parking area to the maximum extent possible with more environmental collection areas for run-off. Mr. Wyatt said they would also like to see that because when projects are designed, they not only have to meet quantity measures, but quality measures and the county's ordinance requirement for all asphalt or concrete, curb and gutter, and hard -pipe, makes it difficult for engineers to reach an environmentally -friendly goal. Mr. Wyatt said he hoped the upcoming ordinance changes would ease restrictions and allow for that type of design. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public comment portion of the public hearing. The following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Rodney Snapp, Sack Creek District, came forward to speak on behalf of the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company. Chan nan Wilmot recognized approximately six to ten fire and rescue persormel in attendance with Mr. Snapp. Mr. Snapp said the Round Hill Conunw- ity Fire and Rescue Company greatly appreciates the intent of the applicant for the proffer to fire and rescue. He expressed concerns, however, about the lack of specificity in the language of the applicant's proffer designating the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company as the recipient of the monetary contribution and the acreage proffered for a new facility. He said the proffers are intended for the impacts to the first due company in the area, which is the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company. Unfortunately, the proffer language simply refers to "the County of Frederick for the Round Hill Community" as the recipient of the monetary contribution and acreage. He said theoretically, the money being proffered by the applicant intended for fire and rescue impacts could be used elsewhere. Mr. Snapp quoted language from the County's Amended Cash Proffer Policy, as follows: "...proffer funds received by Frederick County would be held for the use specified ui the proffer language. In the case of funds proffered to offset impacts to fire and rescue services, in the absence of other proffered specifications, the funds will be earmarked for the first -due company in the area of the subject rezoning at the time the proffer funds are received." Chairman Wilmot asked for comment from the County Attorney, Mr, Roderick Williams. Mr. Williams made t ,,,o points: First, that State Law does not clearly allow for anything other than proffers to the local government, itself. Second, the County's policy with respect to the cash proffer policy and the earmarking for first due companies is a guideline the County can follow in terns of how it proceeds on using proffered funds. He did not see any reason why this applicant's proffer statement, in its current form, would be contrary to that policy. Frederick County Planning Commission j�l � D r Page 2439 Minutes of March 18, 2009 9U €1 -10 - Mr, Chester Lauck, the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company Chief, voiced a concern about the impacts of additional traffic on response times for fire and rescue vehicles traveling along Route 50. He suggested pre-emption devices on all the traffic signals installed along Route 50. Ms. Laura Campbell, a resident on Poor House Road, was concerned about increased traffic on Poor House Road. She asked if there was an estimate on the amount of traffic that would be generated by this proposal. Mr. Mike Mullen, a resident along Poor House Road, Gainesboro District, expressed his concern that not all residents along Poor House Road were notified of this public hearing. He said the public hearing sign was only up for a few days; he said he never received notification by mail and was only made aware of the meeting after he called about the posted sign. Mr. Mullen asked the Commission to table the rezoning in order to give those residents who just found out about the proposal time to respond. Mr. Robert (Bob) Carpenter, a resident of Gainesboro District, said he and his wife own property directly adjacent to this property and they are the parties who are in discussion with regard to the northern extension of Poor House Road. Mr. Carpenter said at this time, they have not yet reached a final agreement on the road, but are actively talking. He said there is greater potential for direct impact to his and his wife's properly than anyone else along Poor House Road, simply because they have approximately '/2 mile of adjoining common boundaries. Mr. Carpenter said they are concerned about this project and they have been in discussions with the applicant; he said the applicant has been very forthcoming with their plans. He also has had an opportunity to meet with the representatives from the National Lutheran Home and has seen the scope of the project they plan. He thought it would be a tremendous anchor and an encouragement for other good development on the remainder of the project. Mr. Carpenter believed the National Lutheran Home would bring an enhancement to the Route 50 corridor and to the Round Hill community. He said at this moment and based what he knows, both he and his wife supports this plan. No one else wished to speak and Chainnan Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address comments from the citizens. Mr. Wyatt said the purpose for the relocation of Poor House Road is to take traffic primarily off this area, where there are existing houses, and the road geometry is much less than desirable. He said the current traffic volume is about 1,200 trips and based on complete build out of the project, traffic is anticipated to increase by another 5,800-7,000 trips; however, those trips would be directed away from the existing houses along Poor House Road. Regarding Mr. Lauck's continent on the traffic signal pre-emption devices, Mr. Wyatt said if for some reason, the three -to -four acre site is not taken and the pre-emption at the Silver Lake signal is no longer a benefit, he would be willing to allow the pre-emption to transfer to the fully -funded traffic signal at the intersection of Poor House and Route 50. Commission members had positive comments about the proposal and commended the applicant and Greenway Engineering for a well-planned and well thought-out project. Cornmissioners believed this was a good project for Frederick County and they believed the National Lutheran Home component was a much needed asset to the community. A Commission member stated that for the short tenor, this project could strengthen the economy ui this area as far as the work that would be needed. Commission members said they would like to see a commitment made by the Board of Supervisors that the proffered fiords will stay within the Round Hill Community and that the fire and rescue station will benefit from those funds. Frederick County Planning Commission gage 144u Minutes of March 18, 2009 0 -11- Corrunissioner Triplet made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and was unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #01-09 of Silver Lake, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 238.96 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) D strict, and 131.06 acres from RA District to MS (Medical Support) District, with proffers, for commercial use and a Continuing Care Retirement Connmunity (CCRC) use. (Note: Conunissioner Kriz was absent from the meeting_) COMMISSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING; SPECIFICALLY, THE MI ZONING DISTRICT CHANGES TO ADDRESS ACCESSORY USES. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that in December 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved revisions to Section 165-26 which addressed secondary and accessory use requirements in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Perkins said these new standards prohibited accessory retail in the M 1 and M2 Zoning Districts; however, as this revision went through the public process, the actual M 1 regulations were not updated to reflect the accessory use standards. Therefore, this ordinance revision has been prepared to strike accessory retailing from the M 1 permitted uses and will also cover the M2 District. She said additionally, this ordinance revision will modify the text to show SIC uses 37-39 as permitted uses. Ms. Perkins stated this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on February 27, 2009. She said the DRRC understands tie proposed ordinance revision is to update the M 1 District in order to be consistent with previously -approved updates. She said the DRRC reconunended approval of the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Conunissioner Oates was concerned about how this amendment would affect existing retail uses and any plans for those uses to expand in the future; he asked if this amendment would prohibit them from doing additions. Ms. Perkins said that anything ni affect prior to the adoption of the secondary use standards would be grandfathered; any type of retail expansions or new uses that would come in after that would be governed by Section 165-26. No other issues were raised. Ms. Perkins said this item will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the Commission's comments for discussion. No action was needed at this time. Frederick Comity Planning Commission Page 2441 Minutes of March 18, 2009 ON& ( -12 - DISCUSSION OF A SITE PLAN FOR THE FREDERICK COUNTY REGI ;NAL LANDFILL SCALE HOUSE AND SCALES Senior Planner, Candice E. Perk -his, presented a site plan for the Frederick County Regional Landfill Scalehouse and Scales for the Commission's review and comments_ She said typically, site plans involving public projects are brought before the Planning Commission for information. She said this site plan is for the construction of a new scalehouse, as well as the addition of two new weight scales to replace the existing scales at the existing landfill facility on Sulphur Springs Road in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Conunissioner Unger commented that many citizens may not be aware of how well the landfill is nui and how much the landfill does for the county_ Otter Commission members agreed. No issues of concern were raised. No action was needed by the Commission at this time. SUMMARY OF THE 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that staff has prepared a summary of the topics discussed at the 2009 Planning Commission's Retreat, as well as list of the identified major planning projects for 2009. Mr. Lawrence said the Planning Staff is prepared to move forward on the following identified projects during the next year: 1) Review, update, and rewrite of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan; 2) Route 11 North Land Use Plan; 3) Senseny Road Area Land Use Plan; 4) Develop ordinances to implement the UDA Study --Urban Center and Neighborhood Village; S) Develop ordinances to implement the recommendations of the RA Study; and 6) Evaluate and implement Affordable/ Workforce Housing Initiatives. The Planning Commission members Avere in agreement with the staff's list of identified projects for the upcoming year. UPDATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that since the adoption of the Planning Commission's Bylaws in early January, the Bylaws Work Group had reviewed three items that warranted additional consideration for inclusion into the Bylaws. Those items were: 1) Public meeting presentation time guidelines and the possible consideration of establishing presentation time limits applicable to staff and applicant presentations; 2) Determination of when an application is complete and ready for scheduling on a Planning Commission agenda; and 3) A time restriction for how long an application may be tabled. Mr. Lawrence reported that the Bylaws Work Group recommended that Item 3 be addressed with a Bylaw amendment; however, Items 1 and 2 do not warrant inclusion in the Bylaws at this time. Mr. Lawrence said Item 3 could be addressed in the Bylaws with the following additional sentence to Paragraph 8-3-9-2: "In no case shall an application be tabled for more than 12 months from the time the complete application was received by the Zoning Administrator or applicable staff." Mr. LaNvrence said if the Planning Commission believes this amendment is appropriate, he would bring the amended Bylaws back to the Commission after 30 days, Nvhich would be May 6, 2009, for review and adoption. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2442 Minutes of March 18, 2009 D ° : sir -13 - The Planning Commission Nvas in agreement to authorize the staff to init ate the 30 -day notice to change the Bylaws in order to incorporate a time restriction for tabling and to schedule the revisions for the Planning Commission's consideration and adoption on May 6, 2009, ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Conunissioner Thomas and seconded by Conunissioner Ours, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R LaNvrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2443 Minutes of March 18, 2009 [ , CONDITIONAL USE PLRMIT 402-09 4~oK C°G� LEROY HARRISON Staff Report for the Planning Commission w Prepared: April 20, 2009 g Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator IPB This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 05/06/09 Board of Supervisors: 05/27/09 Action Pending Pending EXECUTIVE SUMARY: This is a request to update and amend Conditional Use Permit #010- 82 by deleting the following conditions listed below to re -open an existing public garage: 1. This is a five-year permit to be reviewed annually by the staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 2. If the use, occupancy or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use permit shall expire and a new conditional use permit will be required. 3. Entrance must be relocated as shown. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Outside storage limited to less than five (5) vehicles and screened by an opaque fence. 3. Limited to the applicant and one (1) employee. 4. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the enclosed structure. 5. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five (5) vehicles at a time. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Page 2 Conditional Use Permit ##02-09 Leroy Harrison April 20, 2009 LOCATION: This property is located at 8365 North Frederick Pike (Route 522). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 11-A-52 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Public Garage ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Country Store Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This application is to enable a property transfer of an existing auto repair business. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: N/A Fire and Rescue: N/A Inspections Department: N/A Winchester Regional Airport: N/A Historic Resources Advisory Board: N/A Page 3 Conditional Use Permit #02-09 Leroy Harrison April 20, 2009 Planning and Zoning: This property is subject to the conditions of CUP #010-82, approved for a public garage by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on August 11, 1982. Currently, this public garage has not been in operation but meets all of the requirements of the conditions of CUP #010-82. This use will be conducted on a five acre parcel approximately 100 feet or more from any adjoining properties. The applicant is requesting to update and amend CUP #010-82, by deleting the following conditions: 1. This is a five-year permit to be reviewed annually by the staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 2. If the use, occupancy or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use permit shall expire and a new conditional use permit will be required. 3. Entrance must be relocated as shown. Conditions 1 and 2 are no longer required by Frederick County; condition 3 has been implemented. The original conditions are included for your reference. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05/06/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is a request to update and amend an existing Conditional Use Permit for a public garage. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Outside storage limited to less than five (5) vehicles and screened by an opaque fence. 3. Limited to the applicant and one (1) employee. 4. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the enclosed structure. 5. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five (5) vehicles at a time. 6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. SPRAGUE LI3 EdKRBM CUP - Leroy Harrison [b , CUP # 02 - 09 w-- SPRAGUE LORNE E1, R - 7 PIN: 11 -A-52 ,1 A 51 R tk x + bUBGSE JOSEPH S JR 11 A 5, • VE` J•7 y . - O; �"' t}- 0UROSE JOSEPHS JR SPRAGUELORNE E &*ISTHIK -'� '�- < i E.�• I sJE E111 11 _ - •r MILLS JEREME D t• I' ' h ' p� T AiA iA lit' V •,'�v f 11 A 52A LERnr H'8 SI1Fn i A 52 I HARRISON LEROY H. J HARR" LEROY H d SHERRI - j f +'� +�'�{ + + ' � I � y , •!3• 4,a. ' • - � . , 1" S `f`YSIALI ,,4,TMYJ EfC .�' l,_'� ��.. ��• +� .�� i � [ti -' +I! Q •' �J+ �y,,,, r17 H A n 322 �� k 4i�1 y ii �`y �i#Lr CRYSTAL INVESTORS LLC �+.,.g tQ it A 529 •t L`} ,.S{}1 +T i1 A HARRISON LEROY H. • � � �, • xx' Q\ SNANHOLR FRANCES MARE R 53 SHANHOLTZFRANCES MARIE Q � J' Case Planner: Mark r Future R,37 Bypass Zoning AL' (Indxshlal, t xnet:d INsh,tY) ©CUPO209 11 A ' r, _Ler oy_Hauism RI(&,sinrss. Netghhot 1-1 U)Jt,en 1 AxTI IAhrMle Hane Conxmmih Dish ict) SHANHOLTZ FRANCES MARIE t. Buildings Rz (RIIti111P59, ��'llrl'al DistILL t) 4� ALS (Alydkat I:upptN't DI!uj U `7 M S Th ban Iksrlgmi nt?.rex 40 W iBudnem, I.Imb lal •1)ansitbn Dim"ltt) R4 (Rrsidrnxl,i YlamrcA C'umlp,eNh D1,11j U ENI (Estrecntr AlaxulaenO,ng DisO'ict) 41M R5 (RmIdrutIM Rrr[eatkmai <.'mumunlh lNstt lcU R.>, tR,eal.lrra D,stl,ct) 1 HE (Mi.E htcaHm, Dl.sh,Ml t� All (hn,nshiai. Light IX-10o) RP kW.,Idrntiul F"f%Lmanm District) N 0 100 200 400 Feet ut. E I t r rt 1 ;Tx-1u'tertch (Enuu#g Bepar#menf of jalauuing auk prfar allulEuf DIRECTOR JOHN T. P. HORNE DEPUTY DIRECTOR STEPHEN M. GYURISIN August 16, 1982 Joseph S. and Lynda H. DuBose, Jr. Box 31-B Cross Junction, Virginia 22625 Dear Mr. and Mrs. DuBose: P. O. Box 601 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 This letter is to confirm the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' action at their meeting of August ll, 1982. Approval of conditional use permit #010-82 of Joseph S. and Lynda H. DuBose, Jr. for a Public Garage/Farm Equipment and Automotive Repair with the following conditions: 1. That this be a one year permit to be reviewed annually by the staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. 2. If the use, occupancy or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use permit shall expire and a new conditional use permit shall be required. 3. Entrance must be relocated as shown. 4. Outside storage limited to less than five vehicles. 5. Operation limited to applicant and one other employee. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Jo n T. P. Horne Director JTPH/rsa 703/662-4532 Submittal Deadline IjJ/b B P/C Meeting _ E? w * BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1.. Applicant (The applicant if the � owner other) NAME: I 2 0 14. i4A4-r'SatJ ADDRESS: `3 S8 Nor -�, 1=rQ�4c���� �;�c_p C�dSS Tu ADDRESS: 1�1� 2z4z5— TELEPHONE ��fo--g� ��lQ 3 / C �� S'�� - SS d -3l 65- -:cue) 2. Please list all owners, occupants (adult individuals as well as any entities occupying the property), or parties in the interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) g 3 (cs T 1c p VA - 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a death of feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by 1,.Q.c-o y j- S1n4,-rr) 4Arrl Sc*y as evidenced by deed from .T05 K I ARe/son recorded (previous owner) - 3p6f- in deed book no.on page , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I . D .) No . j -A -5a Magisterial District as n2 skn ro Current Zoning 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North East South West 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: S34r7 s�, �rac�erl plc ��+�• NAME,T,,a , f ��52 ADDRESS v��-anter, qA 22( ZS PROPERTY ID# 1 l _ fA - S 1 614 1-4 . 1�7«A'L9-) �c. p i NAMEADDRESS (�AT PROPERTY ID# i NAME:54 (e n+ � e I i LAS ADDRESS �ra�s c'�Con. �I 2,Z(' Z.5 PROPERTY ID# [ l- I + t O 3.Z<:> D(-. NAMELo«E ADDRESS Cro-is J,w � 'on��f� ZZ(.ZS PROPERTY ID# I k' ;3 - CI NAMEl i', 5 c, PROPERTY ID# i 1' VN '-- Q1 NAME LC�z k 6�%e,2 ; A &exi 301% PROPERTY ID# o C�'15 6 1J Q -w %� ee Ea. ADDRESS ZLGZj rrede..<-►c.IC FAL. ADDRESS C 0-m,55 Jui-UAo1 ,\r A UZGZ-.S 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. BK786rc. 44.3 200' 100' 0 200' SCALE IN FEET SECTION 3 KILKENNY ESTATES ZETTA W. STEPHENS D.B.494, P.650 D.3.69, P.511 10 9 8 SPIKE SET IN 18" 12"WHITE I (WHITE OAK TREE OAK TREE1 5 N30°30'18" E 565.89' I.P.F. 6 261.70 } ARKLOW D !dE LAND OF JOSEPH S. DuBOSE, JR. N27°52'32' E '1"' JOSEPH S. FRANCES M. 3 _ (DE® Booz 473, PAGE 736) bldg.,� o DUBOSE,JR. SHANHOLTZ o � (TRACT 52, ((A) ), TAx MAP 11j gl ] �* D.B. 504, P.674 00 � old log T h, D.8.539, P.400 p 5.25 PL.RES cabin metal o Power in Cn bldg.wI?- ell N Z 3 -07 4 R=11,514.16, L=401.04'2 I.P.S. I.P.S. 1176-13' -W 445.58' I.P.S. CHD.= S27012'52"W 401.02' U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 522 (VARIABLE WIDTH) The above Tract of land, located on the Northwest side of U. S. Highway No. 522 about Thirteen Miles Northwest of Winchester, and situate in Gainesboro Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, is bounded as follows: Beginninq at (1) a spike set in a 18 inch White Oak Tree in the line of Lot No. 9, Section 3 of the Kilkenny Estates Subdivision on the Southeast side of Arklow Drive and a corner to a 7.17 Acre Tract of land of Joseph S_ DuBose, Jr. (Tract 51, ((A)), Tax Map 11); thence with the 7.17 Acre Tract of land of Joseph S- DuBose, Jr. S 58 deg. 13 min. 40 sec. E 258.67 feet to (2) an iron peg set a corner to the land of Joseph S. DuBose, Jr_ on the Northwest side of U_ S. Highway No. 522; thence with the Northwest side of U_ S. Highway No. 522 for the following two courses: with a curve to the left, the radius of which is 11,514.16 feet, for a distance of 401.04 feet, the Chord Bearing and Distance being S 27 deg. 12 min. 52 sec. W 401.02 feet to (3) an iron peg set; thence S 26 deg. 13 min. OD sec. W 445.58 feet to (4) an iron peg set on the Northwest side of U. S. Highway No. 522 a corner to the land of Frances M. Shanholtz; thence with the land of Frances M_ Shanholtz N 55 deg. 08 min. 05 sec. W 303.82 feet to (5) a 12 inch White Oak Tree a corner to the land of Frances M. Shanholtz in the line of the land of Zetta W. Stephens; thence with the land of Zetta W_ Stephens N 30 deg. 30 min. 18 sec. E 565.89 feet to (6) an iron peg found a corner between the land of Zetta W. Stephens arA Lot No. 10, Section 3 of the Kilenny Estate Subdivision; thence with Lot No. 10 and then with Lot No. 9, Section 3 of the Kilkenny Estates Subdivision N 27 deg. 52 min. 32 sec. E 261.70 feet to the point of beginning, containing 5.25 Acres, more or Itss_ NOTE: THIS TRACT IS NDT WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATED BY HUD. USED REMAINS OF OLD FENCE TO FST'ABLISH LINE 4-5- 1 HEREB3 CERTIFY THAT ON APRIL 6, 1992, I MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HERBON, &') To THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THERE ARE NO EASEME'NT'S OR EIv✓ROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON THE Qt IND OTHE[t yj?i N THOSE SHOWN HEREON. SURVEY N0. 10,167/A `^ �"' CRICHARDU. RICHARD U. GOODE, fifJII2 ".k- FREDERICK COLWTY, 1 TCEKT1FlED Ll ND SURVEYOR`Plids instrumbrd w�ritirg was mad YVILLE, VIRGINIAIL 6, 1992DEto meon the. /� y ofi acrfd with cartilicate ---"ment of o armed was admitd to rpc�sL°� CLERK 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant �� Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address �i 3 k Nori-b1 :7r -ebPr- ] c IC 1�i k -e Cc ass 7UH V,4 226 Z 57— Owners' Owners' Telephone No. S Yd —��L —�/d3 / C — 5-Y O S So -31 5 S— —,/oe TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Cominission COUNTY of FREDERICK Departs cent of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 'P r From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner I FAX: 540/665-6395 Subject: Public blearing—Proposed Ordinance Amendment - Veterinary Clinics in the B1 Zoning District Bate: April 21, 2009 Frederick County has received a request to add Veterinary Clinics as a permitted use in the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. Currently, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows veterinary offices as a permitted use in the B2 (Business General) and the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning Districts, and as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts. Staff has prepared an ordinance revision that would add "Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties" (SIC 0742) to the B 1 Zoning District uses. This ordinance revision is intended to only allow: animal and pet hospitals, veterinarians for pets and veterinary services. This proposed ordinance excludes any type of livestock services and requires that all animals and activities be kept within the enclosed primary structure. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on January 22, 2009. The DRRC had minor changes to the wording of the proposed text but ultimately supported the revisions and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission then discussed this item at their February 18, 2009 meeting. The Commission unanimously supported the request. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their meeting on March 11, 2009. During the discussion, staff was directed to ensure that horses were excluded from the animals permitted to be treated in the B 1 District with the proposed ordinance revision. With that revision, the Board of Supervisors approved this item to be sent to public hearing. The attached document shows the existing Ordinance with proposed additions shown in bold italics. 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. Proposed Ordinance Revision (§165-82A) 2. Letter requesting the addition of Veterinary Clinics in the B1 Zoning District 3. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Group — 0742 CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 Q Winchester, Virginia 22601-5.300 ATTACHMENT 1 ARTICLE X Business and Industrial Zoning Districts § 165-82. District use regulations. The following tables describe the business and industrial zoning districts in Frederick County, the intent of those districts and the uses allowed in each district. Standard Industrial classification numbers are provided for particular uses to assist the Zoning Administrator in classifying uses. Determining whether a particular use should be classified under a particular category remains subject to interpretation on the part of the Zoning Administrator. A. Neighborhood Business District. The intent of this district is to provide small business areas to serve the daily household needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses allowed primarily consist of limited retailing and personal service uses. Business uses in this district should be small in size and should not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighborhoods. [Amended 4-10-1991] B1 Allowed Uses Veterinary Services for Animal Specialties (excluding horses)with all activities and animals kept within a fully enclosed primary structure Food stores Apparel and accessory stores Drugstores Miscellaneous shopping goods stores Finance, insurance and real estate offices Personal services, except the following: Industrial launderers Funeral homes and crematories Car washes Videotape rental Medical offices Child day-care services Civic, social and fraternal organizations Public buildings Public utility distribution facilities Business signs Standard Industrial CIassification (SIC) Signs allowed in § 165-30B [Amended 2-13-20081 Freestanding building entrance signs [Added 2-13-20081 Electronic Message signs [Added 2-13-20081 Multi -tenant complex signs [Amended 2-13-2008] Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses 0742 54 56 591 594 72 7217 726 7452 784 801, 802, 803 and 804 835 864 ATTACHMENT 1 Parks Churches Restaurants [Added 12-9-19921 5812 Art dealers, art supplies and art framing - [Added 4-24-19951 Fire stations, companies and rescue squads - [Added 10-27-19991 Tobacco stores [Added 1-10-20011 5993 Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping - [Added 1-10-20011 Health clubs no larger than 10,000 square feet 7991 [Added 2-22-20061 Gary J. Konkel 694 Federal Street Paris, VA 20130 NOV 3 2008 Dict 30, 2008 Ms. Candice E. Perians, AICP Frederick County Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 .Dear Ms. Perkins: I have been referred to you by Eric Lawrence and I have discussed this issue with Messer's Lemieux and Kerr. My name is Gary KonkeI and I am an agent with Long and Foster Real Estate in Middleburg. I have been working with a client for several years who is interested in purchasing a commercial property for use as a veterinary clinic for a small animal practice. We have experienced difficulty in finding a suitable location because of the small number of B-2 zoned properties in our desired location. I understand that your Comprehensive Plan assumes that the districts east of Winchester bordered by Rt. 7 and Rt. 50 are intended to be primarily residential areas. In researching the Frederick County zoning ordinance I have come to believe that the B -I zone should include veterinary offices as a permitted use and would respectfully request that you consider amending your zoning ordinance accordingly. I understand the reluctance to make zoning changes based on any single individuals need and I agree with that position.. However, I believe there is a strong rationale for making such a change for the consistency of your ordinance and to better serve the needs of Frederick County citizens. My rationale follows: The purpose of the B1 zoning district is: `B 1 Neighborhood Business District. The intent of this district is to provide small business areas to serve the daily household needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Uses allowed primarily consist of limited reta ing and personal service uses. Business uses in this district should be small in size and should not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighbo woods. [Amended 4-10-19911" Small Animal Veterinary Clinics are a business use that is a non intrusive, quiet, and low traffic volume operation that provides a valuable service to residential property owners. Unlike kennels, vet clinics do not introduce significant noise- In fact, they are similar to private residences having dogs for pets. They do not create nuisance factors for neighboring residences. Small Animal Vet Practices meet the intent of the B-1 district. Vet Clinics are similar to a medical building which is a permitted use within the district. It is a personal service business that meets the daily household needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Vet Clinics are typically small in size and would not produce substantial vehicle traffic in excess of what is usual in the residential neighborhoods. There is an increasing need for Vet Clinic locations that are located near intensive residential areas. Because they are a non intrusive use, they can be placed near residential areas and provide greater convenience and reduce travel time and expenses for clinic patrons. There seems to be little rationale for requiring that Vet Clinics to be located in areas with intensive business uses. They are not serviced by large delivery trucks. They do not create large volumes of traffic and do not require a lot of parking because clientele are schedule for appointment. Vet Clinics do not create excessive waste or use unusual amounts of water or sewer capacity. Vet Clinics are a use permitted by a Conditional Use Permit iu the RP zoning district. That would lead one to believe that county planners recognize that Vet Clinics can exist even within residential neighborhoods. Granted that conditions may be placed on the use, but it doesn't seem to make sense that Vet Clinics can be approved in RP Gary J. Konkel 694 Federal Street Paris, VA 20130 districts and not B 1 districts. It appears to be a more logic Ry c:;,:•sistent policy tc permit the use in a more restricted Business district than in a residential district. I wom'd be happy to meet with you to pur',her discuss this issue. Please let me know of a time that is convenient. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, — I"- Gary . Konkel 540592.9008 540272.6685 32 STANDARD ZIP DUSTMAL CLASSIFICATION Industry Group Industry No. i6o, 012 CROP sp—MVICES—Con. 0722 Crop narve--tiRg, Prh=rily by Machine—Con. Berries machine harvesting of NI -26 harvesting y a:.'sine of Chopl�g and 0. fijliug a h;--" agrinuitmA s"eaRuts� machine harvesting of COMM, machine harvesting of Sugar beets, machine harvesting a< Prov. maebiue _-�Lin-�c Sugarcane, machine harvesting of Grain, machine bnrvesting a Threshing service Say n—VhW..rakiag baling and chop- Vegetable-, ma h• a harvesting of ping 0723 Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Cipning Estaabllshmenta Primarily engaged in performing services on crops, subse- quent to their har-est, with the intent of preparing them for market or fur- ther processimg- Establishments Primarily engaged M b'ly-mg farm products for resale to other .than the general public for household constl:nption and which also prepare them for market cr further processing are classifiedWholesaletrade. Establishments primarily engaged in stemming and redin ry- ing tobacco are classified in Manufact-tlring, Industry 2141. Bean earn shell' g Not bulling and shelling Cotton seed delinfing Packaging fresh or farm -dried fruit. 111' g of corn, rice, bay, ft Uts, and and vegetables vegetables - Peanut shelling, custom Flax decorticating and xetting Potato curing - Frmt precodmg. not in am ectian with Seed cleauim . translwrtaiion - Sorting grading, and packing of f-ruiis Frua va=-urL =— i— and vegetables C�-raia cleaning - Swe°t pctato curing Grain funigatimn Tobacco grading Grain grmdmg costo. Vegetable preconling, not in connection Moss ginning with transportation 0724 Cotton GinningVegetable vacuum cooling Establishments primarily engaged in glumng cotton, Cotton ginning.. Cotton pkkery Gins, cotton_ operation of 074 VETETRINARV Sl RVICES 0741 Veterinary Services for Livesioe?, Establishments of licensed practitioners primarily engaged in the practice of Veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery, for cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and Poultry- Establishments of licensed practitioners primarily engaged in treating all other animals are classified in Industry 0742. Animal baspitals for livestock Vetari narimos for Iivestoek Veterinary services for livestock 0742 Veterinary Services for Animal S p�p_cz.alties Establishments of licensed practitioners primarily engaged in the practice of Veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery, for animal specialties_ Animal spe- cialties include horses, bees, fish, fur -bearing animals, rabbits, dogs, cats, and Other pets and birds, except poultry. Establishments of licensed practitioners Primarily engaged in Veterinary medicine for cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and Poultry are classified in Industry 0741. Animal hospitals for pets and other animal specialties Veterinary services for pets and other Pet hospitals animal specialties Veterinarians for - pets and other animal specialties 0' • • C OOKUN'.'"Y of tr RF-DERUCK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-565? MFEE DRANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Revision to the Planning Commission Bylaws DATE: April 21, 2009 On March 18, 2009, staff presented the Planning Commission with a proposed Bylaws amendment that was recommended by the Bylaws Work Group. This proposed amendment established a time restriction for how long an application may be tabled. The Planning Commission agreed that the amendment was appropriate, and authorized staff to initiate the 30 days notice to change the Bylaws - incorporating a time restriction for length of tabling - and to schedule the revisions for the Commission's consideration to adopt on May 6, 2009. This proposed Bylaws amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission on May 6, 2009 for action. Proposed Bylaws Amendment Time Restriction for how long an application may be tabled. At times an applicant will request that their application (i.e. Agenda Item) be tabled indefinitely. It may be appropriate to establish a tabling guideline that states no application shall be tabled for longer than 12 months from the date the complete application was received by the Planning Department. Suggestive changes are shown below in bold, underlined, italics. 8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. In no case shall an application be tabled for more, than 12 rnontl-is h omn the time LLim comp"eta aprdic,ation was received .by the Zoning Administrator or aj2plicable state 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 n Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Memo to Planning Commission RE: Bylaws Revisions April 21, 2009 q_q_Q_q An nnnliratinn that has been tabled f an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLt�1 S County of Frederick, Virginia VER 050609 For Consideration by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2009 See page 9 for revision ARTICLE I - AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission". ARTICLE II - PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Coun 3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall: 1) participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an effort to review and better understand specific agenda items by no later than their second Planning Commission meeting. ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS Page 2 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall, be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-4 Report official communications. 4-3-1-5 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-6 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-7 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the fall powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 When acting as chair, the vice-chairman shall carry out other duties as Page 3 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-4 Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or .until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-5 Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. Page 4 Plamling Commission Bylaws VER 450609 ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES 5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. 5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve for a term of one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members of every committee. 5-6 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually. These officers shall be current Commission members and should represent different Magisterial Districts, if possible. 5-7 The committees may operate as a committee of the whole or by executive committee with current and past Commission members serving as members of that committee. 5-8 The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific annual responsibility of the parent committee. One executive committee member will serve as liaison to the standing subcommittee and will assist staff in managing its activities. Membership will be comprised of past Commission members and citizens. Membership will be appointed by the chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. 5-9 The committees may establish ad-hoc groups to assist in specific, carefully -defined tasks for a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc group are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. Page 5 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 ARTICLE VI — COMMISSION MEETINGS 6-1 At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall fix the date, time, and place of all its regular meetings for the ensuing calendar year, and shall fix the day on which a regular meeting shall be continued should the Chairman declare that weather or other conditions make it hazardous for members to attend. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting 8-1-1 Call to Order. 8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda. Page 6 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes. 8-1-4 Committee Reports. 8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda. 8-1-6 Public Hearings. 8-1-7 Public Meetings. 8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion. 8-1-9 Other. 8-1-10 Adjournment. 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The chairman and secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the application's Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act. 8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: Page 7 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff. 8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant. 8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment. 8-3-4-4 Applicant Response. 8-3-4-5 Staff Summary. 8-3-4-6 Discussion by Commission. 8-3-4-7 Motion and Action by Commission. 8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the chairman may allow public comment. 8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-8 Public Hearings 8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia,_1.950, as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public Page 8 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-8-4 The 90 -day period (Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) for the Planning Commission to make a rezoning recommendation to the Board will start at the date of the first completed public hearing 8-3-9 Tabling 8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items 45 - days (less if reaching the limits of Section 165-10) for any one of the following: A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Revised proffers have been received from the applicant within twenty-one (21) days of the advertised Planning Commission meeting. E) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. F) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. G) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. H) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure Page 9 Planning Conunission Bylaws VER 050609 that the requirements of Section 165-10 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. L -z no case shall an application be tabled f or raore than 12 months from the tame the complete application was receivedf by the Zofain, Administator or applicable staff. 8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the Planning Commission. 8-3-10 Work sessions 8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. 8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 8-3-11 Adjournment Page 10 Planning Commission Bylaws VER 050609 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and the meeting shall be adjourned by 11:00 P.M. In the instance that an item begun before 10:30P.M. has not been acted on by the 11:00 P.M. hour, the Commission may, by majority vote, lift the adjournment time until a recommendation has been made, or such earlier time, after 11:00 F.M., as the Commission may fix. ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year. 9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in November of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy. 9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year, the By -Laws will be adopted. C� • J COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Ppnnning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5655 FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AiCP, Senior Planner Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Recordation of Proffers Date: April 21, 2009 Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not contain standards as to how proffer statements should be written and does not require that proffers be recorded once accepted by the Board of Supervisors. It was requested that staff develop an ordinance that addresses these items. Specifically, the recordation requirement has been developed due to concerns expressed regarding proffers not showing up when title searches are performed on properties. Staff has prepared a revision to the ordinance that contains requirements for the legal form of proffer statements and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded with the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court. The proposed additions to the ordinance are as follows: §165-13. Conditional rezoning. D. Legal form of proffer statement. (1) All proffers shall be in writing and shall be in a form suitable for recordation in the land records of Frederick County. (2) The proffer statement shall define the owners of the subject property and shall be signed by all parties involved. E. Recordation of Proffers. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approves proffered conditions as part of'a rezoning, the Zoning Administrator or County Attorney shall, within ten (10) days of the Board's actions, present the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court for recordation. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on February 26, 2009. The DRRC expressed concerns over proposed title requirements that were included with the initial version. The proposed ordinance was revised to remove the title requirements, the revisions were emailed to the DRRC, and the changes were endorsed by the group. The revised text includes requirements for the legal form of proffer statements as well as a requirement for the recordation of proffers. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachment: 1. Proposed Ordinance Revision (§165-13) 107 North Kent Street, Suite 207, a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ARTICLE II Amendments [Amended 6-13-19901 § 165-13. Conditional rezoning. ATTACHMIENT 1 The applicant for a rezoning may proffer in writing before the public hearing by the Board of Supervisors conditions to be placed on the approval of the rezoning. A. Procedures. Proffers shall be presented to the Planning Commission at the advertised public hearing for the rezoning. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the acceptance of the proffers and the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors following the procedures described for amendments to this chapter. Final proffers shall be received in writing, signed by the owner and applicant, at least five (5) days prior to the advertised hearing of the Board of Supervisors. C. Proffer Standards. The conditions proffered shall meet the following standards. (1) The rezoning itself must give rise to the need for the conditions. (2) Such conditions shall have a reasonable relation to the rezoning. (3) All conditions shall be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Types of proffers. The types of conditions proffered shall include but need not be limited to the following: (1) Limitation on the use of the land. (2) Limitations on the type of housing provided. (3) Limitations of the size or locations of buildings or structures. (4) Limitations on the density or intensity of the use. (5) Conditions on the appearance or inaintenance of structures or uses. (6) Conditions preventing smoke, odors, fumes, dust, noise, traffic congestion or flooding. (7) Conditions or limitations on the location and nature of entrances and driveways. (8) Conditions concerning the number, location and design of parking and loading spaces. (9) Landscaping provisions. (10) Provisions concerning outdoor storage and processing. (11) Building height limitations. (12) Provisions for stormwater management and environmental protection. (13) Preservation and protection provisions for trees, woodland, streams or other natural features. (14) On-site or off-site sewer or water improvements. (15) On-site or off-site drainage improvements. (16) On-site or off-site road, entrance or driveway improvements. (17) A particular master development plan or plan features or site layout features. (18) Preservation of historic structures and sites located on the land to be rezoned. (19) Buffer, screening and separation features. (20) Requirements concerning the phasing or timing of development. (21) The dedication of land for planned roads or for facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. (22) The construction of planned roads or necessary road improvements. (23) The construction of facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. (24) Cash contributions for road improvements or for planned facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. (25) Other conditions used to lessen or mitigate the impacts identified in the impact analysis. D. Legal form of proffer statement. (1) All proffers shall be in writing and shall be in a form suitable for recordation in the land records of Frederick County. (2) The proffer statement shall define the owners of the subject property and shall be signed by all parties involved. E. Recordation of Proffers. If the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approves proffered conditions as part of a rezoning, the Zoning Administrator or County Attorney shall, within ten (10) days of the Board's actions, present the written proffer to the Frederick County Clerk of the Circuit Court for recordation. F.D. Amendment of conditions. Once accepted and adopted by the Board of Supervisors, such conditions may only be changed through the procedures required for ordinance amendments as described by this section. G. E—. Enforcement of conditions. The Zoning Administrator shall keep records of all conditions attached to rezonings, which shall be readily accessible to the public. The Zoning Map shall show by appropriate symbol the existence of conditions accepted for rezonings. In addition, the Zoning Administrator shall maintain a conditional zoning index which shall provide for ready access to the conditions created. Failure to meet all conditions shall constitute cause to deny the issuance of building or occupancy permits. The Zoning Administrator shall enforce the conditions attached to the rezoning using the following means: (1) The ordering in writing of the remedy of any noncompliance with such conditions. (2) The bringing of legal action to ensure compliance with such conditions, including injunction abatement or other appropriate actions. (3) The requiring of a guaranty, satisfactory to the Board of Supervisors, in an amount sufficient for the construction of any improvements required by the conditions or a contract for the construction of such improvements. The applicant's guaranty shall be reduced or released by the Zoning Administrator upon the completion, in whole or in part, of such improvements.