The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 10-15-08 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia October 15, 2008 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) August 20, 2008 Minutes................................................................................................. (A) 3) Committee Reports.....................................................................................—.......... (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Senseny Road Enhancement Grant Application. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to apply for Virginia Department of Transportation (VDO'1,) Enhancement Grant funds for bicycle and pedestrian paths along Senseny Road in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (B) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Conditional Use Permit 909-08 for Shenandoah Mobile Company — Continuation of Commission Deliberation. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7) Ordinance Amendment — Outdoor Lighting. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Supplementary Use Regulations, § 165-35 Nuisances, to regulate intensity and placement. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Transportation Master Plan Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (E) 9) Stephens City Joint County/Town Land Use Committee Update Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (F) 1.0) Route 11 Update Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (G) 11) Annual Bylaws Review Mr. Lawrence ......................... FILE COPY 12) Other C� • • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 20, 2008_ PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Plamimg Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark- R. arkR. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; 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 Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the August 6, 2008 meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the meeting minutes of July 2, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the meeting minutes of July 16, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 08/11/08 Mtg. Commissioner Mohn stated that the Community Area Plans Standing Committee will have their next meeting on August 29 at 10:00 a.m. in the County Planning Conference Room at which time information Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2312 Minutes of August 20, 2008�' Q from the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) will be discussed. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Public Facilities Standing Committee will be meeting on August 22 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Planning Conference Room. He also reported that the Comprehensive Plans Standing Committee is waiting for some issues to be settled from the Natural Resources Committee Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 08/19/08 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed a proposed nine -acre rezoning located on Route 50 East. He said the HRAB did not see outstanding issues; however, the applicant's application was not complete. The second discussion was a proposed cell tower by Shenandoah Cellular on Red Bud Road within the Agricultural and Forestal District, near the Third Battle of Winchester. Commissioner Oates said the HRAB had a variety of maps showing all of the tower locations currently on file with the FCC and showing from what areas the proposed tower would be visible. He said the HRAB did not believe the benefit from the service would offset the visual impact and they recommended denial_ Commissioner Oates said the third item discussed was the Northeast Land Use Plan and the HRAB identified nine historical structures that should be included within the Plan. Winchester Planning Commission (WPCs — 08/19/08 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported details on the following items discussed by the WPC: a revision to the development plan for the Willows at Meadowbranch by the addition of 20 units; they listened to public concerns regarding a group home in the Old Fort area of Merrian Street; and they provided administrative authorization for Laurel Center on 402 North Cameron Street, Our Health, Phase 2 on North Cameron and Baker Streets, for used car sales on Commercial Street, and for the Coca-Cola plant renovation on Valley Avenue. Commissioner Ours said the WPC also discussed a possible alternative layout for Walgreens on Amherst Street. Rural Areas Working Group Commissioner Watt said the Rural Areas Working Group has met twice and will meet again on August 21 at 7:30 p.m. He said the first couple meetings focused on how to get information out to citizens in the County and how to get other people involved. Commissioner Watt said the web site is www.co.frederick.va.us for anyone wishing to get input or be involved. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2313 -3 - Joint Stephens City -Frederick County Working Group Conunissioner Thomas reported that ground rules were established between the two administrative groups. He said two potential rezoning applications or Stephens City were discussed in the area which was annexed by Stephens City from Frederick County several years ago. Commissioner Thomas said the review was based on land use compatibility with the overall land use plan and also potential traffic impacts to Frederick County. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application 906-08 of HH Hunt Corporation/ Route 50 Assisted Liviing Facility, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 10.24 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. The properties are located at the intersection of Ward Avenue and Route 50 to the east and Round Hill Road and Route 50 to the west. The property is further identified with P.I.N.s 53-A- 81, 53-A-82, and 53B-3-25 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action – Tabled for 45 Days Commissioner Mohn said he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning application because of a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the applicant's proffer statement provides a commitment to develop the property with a 75,000 square -foot assisted living facility; however, other B2 (General Business) uses have not initially been proffered out. Mr. Ruddy questioned the impact of other, tmevaluated B2 uses. He said this property is located within the area covered by the Round Hill Land Use Plan and is within the Se -ter and Water Service Area (SWSA) in an area designated for commercial land use. Mr. Ruddy stated that site access is proposed to be provided from two locations—the primary access is via Ward Avenue and a secondary limited access point is proposed to be provided from Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50) via a right -in, right -out only entrance. Mr. Ruddy commented that the proposed access onto Ward Avenue is very constrained and the parcel may not sufficiently accommodate a full two-way access road which meets the necessary setbacks from the adjacent property line to the north and respects the required buffer to the south. He questioned how the applicant planned to address the comprehensively planned road to the rear of the property. Regarding potential impacts to community facilities, Mr. Ruddy recognized the proffered $2,000 monetary contribution to offset fire and rescue -facilities; however, he noted this use may generate public facility needs sirnilar to a multi -family use and may not cover the impacts projected by the development impact model at this location. Frederick County Planning Comnussion Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2314 It was recognized by the staff and Commission members that the applicant had just recently submitted revised information and proffers which did not arrive timely enough to be placed in the agenda or reviewed by the staff or the public. Mr. Ruddy stated that the Commission's Bylaws stipulate that if information is not received within 21 days prior to the meeting, the Commission may table the request for 45 days. Commissioners noted that the revised proffer statement significantly changes the whole application. Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, P.C. of Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., was present on behalf of the applicant, H.H. Hunt Corporation. Mr. Lawson stated that the proffers dated June 24, 2008 were included in the agenda package; the proffers dated August 18, 2008, include the response to recent comments from VDOT and the County Attorney and the elimination of all other potential B2 uses. Mr. Lawson next introduced Mr. R. Bo Cook, Jr., Director of Development for HH Hunt Corporation. Mr. R Bo Cook, Jr., Director of Development for H.H. Hunt Corporation, pointed out that H. H. Hunt Corporation is a family-owned company based out of Blacksburg, Virginia. He explained that H. H. Hunt is not only the owner and developer of the property, but is also the contractor and management agent for the end use of the building. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Cook provided some representations ofbuildings they had recently constructed. He also spoke about the many reasons why they believed this was a particularly good site for their facility and he described potential residents for their facility. Commission members asked for the anticipated number of employees. Mr. Cook replied there will be approximately 45 full-time and part-time employees, which includes not only the administrative staff, but building maintenance staff and care staff, with the majority of employees working during the dayshift. Commission members asked Mr. Cook why he continued to pursue the access on Route 50 when this was a destination facility. Mr. Cook replied that several easements are currently in effect which actually utilize that particular access easement and from a legal standpoint, they are not sure it could be taken away. Secondly, while he believed the majority of the use will be through Ward Avenue, there will patrons who will not know how to access their facility. He said as far as VDOT is concerned, this is already an existing driveway. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Gregory Bishop, Back Creek District, said he had a copy of the agreement involving the shared easements and right-of-way between the properties owned by Po, Smith, and Allegheny Power. He said the agreement indicates the easement is to be shared by Po and Allegheny Power Company; however, Mrs. Smith's right-of-way is gated, prohibiting her access. Mr. Bishop spoke in favor of the Round Hill and Ward Avenue connection, in lieu of using Route 50. In addition, Mr. Bishop said he was involved in getting the Round Hill area included in the SWSA and he understood that all sewage south of Route 50 was to be directed to the Parkins Mill treatment station. He questioned this application's plans for sewage disposal and if the lines were in place. He was concerned because individuals within the community, such as Rosedale Church, are waiting in line for the public sewage capability. Ms. Patricia Smith said she was the property owner with the easement everyone is referring to. Ms. Smith said the gate is not on her property; she said the electric company placed the gate. Ms. Smith said that no one has talked with her about this and she was nott even notified in writing about this meeting.. She wanted to know how she and the other neighbors along Stonewall Drive would be affected by all of this. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2315 -5- Conunission members had several concerns they believed the applicant needed to take care of, which included the 50 -feet across the main entrance on Ward Avenue; a shared access agreement on Route 50; and a possible tie-in to Stonewall Drive. Because the revised proffer statement was received after the Commission's agenda package was mailed, the Commission preferred to table the rezoning to allow sufficient time for the Commissioners and the public to review the revised proffers. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Watt, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Plamiing Commission does hereby table, for 45 days, Rezoning Application 406-08 of HH Hunt Corporation/ Route 50 Assisted Living Facility, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 10.24 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, to allow sufficient time for the Commission and the public to review the applicant's revised proffers, dated August 18, 2008, and to allow more time for the applicant to address outstanding issues. The vote to table was unanimous. (Note: Cominissioner Molm abstained from voting.) PUBLIC HEARING A waiver request by Betty Jean Davis, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., for an exception to the Frederick County Code, Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3), Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet in width. Specifically, this request is to reduce the ingress/egress easement requirement of a 50 -foot minimum right-of-way to a 20 -foot minimum right-of- way. The property is located north of Harmony Hollow Lane, approximately 0.8 miles north of Northwestern Pike (%t. 50). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 27 -A -77A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. is requesting a waiver of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144-31C(3), to enable a family subdivision of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. Mr. Cheran stated that the applicant is seeking a waiver from the minimum width requirement for a shared private driveway. The reason for the waiver request is to provide relief from a 50 -foot right-of-way; the parent parcel is currently served by a 20 -foot right-of- way. He said letters from adjoining property owners who declined to grant the easement have been included in the agenda packet. Mr. Cheran said the waiver would enable the creation of two family lots to be served by the existing 20 -foot right-of-way. Commission members had questions for the staff about the possibility of one or more of the three 30 -acre lots being subdivided further, and the possibility of 18 lots being created on a 20 -foot right-of-way. They inquired if there was anything in the ordinance stipulating the number of lots that could be created on a 20 - foot -wide roadway. Mr. Cheran replied that any future subdivision would have to meet the 50 -foot right-of-way requirement and the property owner would have to come before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors if they sought relief from the 50 -foot right-of-way requirement. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2316 Z. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated a house can be constructed on an existing lot; however, if further subdivisions are desired and a 50 -foot right-of-way is not available, then the Board of Supervisors must grant approval of the subdivision. Mr. Lawrence said the Board of Supervisors decides how many lots they would want to have there. He said with regard to this application, there is one property owner who desires to create two family lots, resulting in a total of three homes and that is all the Commission is considering today. He said if anyone else wants to do additional family lot subdivisions, they must go through this same process and the Board of Supervisors can decide whether or not there are too many houses being developed on the 20 -foot right-of-way. He said the Board of Supervisors can choose whether or not to grant the waiver. Commissioner Oates noticed the plat did not have an approval line for VDOT. He said one driveway can have two houses, but after that, the entrance must be a paved subdivision entrance and he asked whether VDOT had reviewed the entrance off Route 50 to determine if the subdivision entrance was a paved surface with a 25 -foot radius. In addition, Commissioner Oates said the County Code requires a 50 -foot right-of- way, while the State Code requires only 30 feet for a family subdivision; he questioned whether the County could approve a subdivision on a right-of-way less than 30 feet. Conunissioner Watt commented about the steep topography; he bad doubts about whether a road could be constructed or maintained in this area. Commissioner Unger said family lot subdivisions typically consist of only a couple acres and he questioned whether dividing over 100 acres in this fashion was taking advantage of the family lot subdivision rule; he said it didn't seem to encourage family members to stay on the farm for agriculture. He questioned whether the request met the intent of the County Code. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Dwayne Brown, a professional land surveyor with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., introduced himself and the property owner, Ms. Betty Davis, and several of her family members. Mr. Brown stated -that the property was acquired by Ms. Davis' parents in 1936; and in 1995, upon the death of her mother, she and her brother acquired the interest in the 179 -acre property (her father had previously passed away). Ms. Davis and her brother petitioned the court to partition the property and in 2007, it was court mandated to divide the property into two parcels. Mr. Brown said the 103 -acre parcel on the submitted plat was conveyed to Ms. Davis; the property to the south of this piece was conveyed to her brother and contained 75.8 acres. He said this property was undeveloped; the property to the south had some physical improvements. He pointed out existing Harmony Hollow Lane at the southwest part of the property. By the court mandate, through the petition for partition, this additional 20 -foot ingress/ egress easement was created in the location shown; he said the location was not by choice, but was by court mandate. Mr. Brown said that Ms. Davis has the 103 acres and desires to convey through family division: Parcel 1- 30.0000 acres, to her grandson; Parcel 2 - 36.5127 acres, to one ofher daughters; and she wishes to retain the remaining parent tract, 36.5127 acres. Mr. Brown said they do not have any intentions to develop the property. Mr. Raymond J. Whitacre, an adjoining property owner, said the adjacent landowners were approached by the applicant, but were not willing to dedicate the additional right-of-way for the required 50 feet. Mr. Whitacre did not think it was wise for a housing development to be placed between two working farms because many farming activities, such as noise from machinery_ and cattle, the smells from manures and fertilizers, and the spraying of chemicals, will be disruptive to the average housing development. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2317 -7— Mi. Clay Whitacre, an adjoining property owner, said the 20 -foot right-of-way is aprivate drive from Route 50 all the way up to Route 487, Harmony Hollow Lane, and there is an additional house there, 240 Harmony Hollow Lane. Mr. Whitacre said this driveway currently serves two houses, it is privately owned, it is on his property, and he is responsible for all of the road maintenance, including graveling and snow plowing. He said if more houses are constructed, then there will be questions about who will help maintain the road to accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Whitacre expressed his concern about the possibility of additional subdivisions of this land in the future, even though it may not be intended today, through unexpected events such as death, divorce, or a job change. He said a loop hole for development exists. Mr. Whitacre also talked about the intensive farming activities that take place here. Ms. Betty Davis, the owner of the 103 acres, said there will not be a housing development on this property; she said this land will still be used for raising cattle. She said she wanted to divide the land so it will be ready for her grandson and granddaughters. Ms. Davis said the existing road is under a grandfather clause and anyone can use it. She asked what she could do with her 103 acres if she couldn't subdivide it and give it to her family while she is still living. Mr. Brown returned to the podium and stated that Ms. Davis could always convey one-third undivided interest to her granddaughter and one-third undivided interest to her grandson; the three parties would then each own a one-third undivided interest; they could then petition the court to partition the property and the Planning Commission would have no input in this outcome, it would be solely at the discretion of the judge. Commissioner Triplett suggested that possibly having a court decide on the partition of this property may indeed be the most appropriate way to handle this family subdivision under the circumstances. Commissioner Unger stated that he did not have a problem with Mrs. Davis subdividing this property for her children; however, a family subdivision is more typically done on a two -acre or smaller tract with a contiguous farm retained. Commissioner Unger said he would prefer to see smaller tracts and have the children live on the property. Commissioner Kerr commented that much has been said about what could happen in the future. He believed it was important to keep in mind what the Commission is being asked to look at and that is simply for a waiver to enable a family subdivision of two lots. Conumssioner Thomas commented this was an unusual request because ofthe size ofthe family division parcels; however, if that is what the family wants to do, he did not think it was the Commission's prerogative to convince them to do something else. Commissioner Thomas said the practicality of developing this land in the future into a greater -density living area doesn't seem to be there; he said the topography would seem to eliminate it from economic feasibility. Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of the waiver request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of a waiver request by Betty Jean Davis, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., for an exception to the Frederick County Code, Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3.), Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet in width. Specifically, this request is to reduce the ingress/egress easement requirement of a 50 -foot minimum right-of-way to a 20 -foot minimum right-of-way. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2318 ME This majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Ambrogi, Manuel, Ruckman, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Oates, Wilmot, Triplett COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of Interstate Area Overlay Signs and revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, to remove general merchandise and apparel stores (SIC 53 and 56) from the qualifying uses. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance focuses on the uses which are permitted to be displayed on hiterstate Area (IA) Overlay signs. Ms. Perkins said that within the IA Overlay District, property owners are permitted to have larger signs along highways at certain interstate exits. She said the intent and purpose of an IA Overlay sign is to in the traveling public as to the locations of uses such as hotels, gasoline stations, and restaurants. However, the IA Overlay District currently allows for uses such as general merchandise and apparel stores, which are SIC 53 and 56, to be used on the signs as well. Ms. Perkins said uses, such as merchandise and apparel stores, are classified as destination businesses and with these types of uses, customers have already planned in advance to visit the business; therefore, an IA Overlay sign would not be necessary. On the other hand, businesses such as restaurants, hotels, and gasoline stations would be classified as drive-by businesses which customers frequent on impulse or while driving by and as such, a sign to attract customers from the interstate would be more appropriate. Ms. Perkins said this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on June 26, 2008, and the DRRS endorsed the text amendment as presented. Ms. Perkins said since the DRRS meeting, one comment was received pertaining to some of the uses permitted under SIC 5 5 and whether additional clarification of uses should be considered. She noted that SIC 55, dealing with gasoline stations, also allows for uses such as home and auto supply stores, automobile, motorcycle, and boat dealers. Ms. Perkins said if the Planning Commission believes these uses are inappropriate, then the IA Overlay District could be further clarified to include only SIC 55-41 which is gasoline service stations as a qualifying use in the IA Overlay District, along with hotels and restaurants. Commissioner Oates wanted to be certain that SIC 55-41 included all of the gasoline stations, including truck stops. Commissioner Ambrogi inquired if there had been any public inquiries or objections to the interstate signs. Ms. Perkins said there had not been any public complaints; she said the staff is attempting to clean up the ordinance before any issues arise in the future. Commissioners were in support of narrowing the SIC Codes further. They agreed with the logic of weeding out the destination uses and they agreed car dealerships and some of the other uses were not necessarily impulse purchases. The Planning Commission voiced their support of the proposed text amendment for IA Overlay signs as presented by the staff. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2319 Discussion of the Industrial Transition (133) Zoning District Height Restriction and revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, to allow for structures up to 45 feet in height.. Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Oates said he was the owner of B3 property. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the law firm of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC submitted a Zoning Ordinance text amendment request to enable the building height restriction in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District to -be increased from 35 feet to 45 feet. She said the requested changes are based on a desire to have a height allowance in the B3 District that falls between the B2 (Business General) District and the MI (Light Industrial) District. Ms. Perkins said this item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting on June 26, 2008. She said the DRRS supported the 45 foot height increase as an exception to the height requirements so long as anything over 35 feet in heightutilized the building setbacks required for the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Thomas said this amendment will increase storage vertically, instead of using up more property horizontally, and going from 35 feet to 45 feet is not objectionable. He said this will add at least a third of the cubic volume of storage; and, in addition, the new automated systems go vertically rather than horizontally. Commissioner Thomas believed this was going in the right direction. Other Commission members agreed. The Planning Commission supported the proposed amendment for revisions to the height restrictions in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District as presented by the staff. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from discussion.) OTHER Chairman Wilmot encouraged Planning Commission members to attend the CPEAV (Citizens Planning Education Association of Virginia) annual meeting in Williamsburg on October 12 through 14. Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Board of Supervisors approved the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land Use Plan on August 13, 2008. He said implementation steps which evolve around the UDA (Urban Development Area) and SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area) expansion were included with the plan. Mr. Ruddy said the Chairman had expressed some concern about a discussion with the Sanitation Authority regarding the ability to serve this location; therefore, the Board held off changing the UDA and SWSA at their meeting. Mr. Ruddy said the staff met with the Sanitation Authority the next day and confirmed with the Authority that everything was satisfactory for service in the Route 277 area. Mr. Ruddy added that the staff will be looking for additional direction from the Board on how to.deal with the Lowe's CPPA request for the acreage around the relocated interchange on I-81. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 20, 2008 Page 2320 -10 - ADJOURNMENT There was no further business to discuss. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the meeting adjourned at 8.50 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2321 Minutes of August 20, 2008 TO: Planning Commission COUNTY of FREDERICK partment of Planning Bund Developmept 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM'S FROM: J6hn A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation 'sP` RE: Enhancement Grant Application DATE: September 30, 2008 County staff is undertaking the annual process of applying for Enhancement Grant funds. Enhancement Grants are federal funds that are awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on an annual basis for improvements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation. This is a grant with a local match component of 20%. As is the case with many VDOT grant programs, the application process itself does not obligate County funds. In the event that the County receives an award, the Board of Supervisors would determine at that time whether to commit funds with the hope that private funds would be available to cover the match requirement. For this year's application cycle, staff has recommended an application for enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in the vicinity of Senseny Road Elementary School. This is a continuation of this project which was awarded $140,000.00, and $250,000.00, in the last two years. The proposed project would add paved multiuse paths to the northern and southern sides of Senseny Road between I-81 and the Orrick Commons project. The project would also include improvements to the crossovers of roadways traversed by the paths and an additional crossover of Senseny Road at Senseny Road Elementary. Attached, please find a graphic depicting the project area. This project would serve as an important cornerstone for a future pedestrian and bicycle system extending further East along Senseny Road and into the City of Winchester. The Transportation Committee considered this proposal at their September 29, 2008 meeting and recommended approval. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North ;Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 *e 'ji II 4iiiiiG'�4it Senseny Road Improvement Grant Community Park � Critical Pedestrian Crossings Potential Multi - Use Trail Location o toxo 2.oaa Feel x Senseny Road Improvement Grant Community Park � Critical Pedestrian Crossings Potential Multi - Use Trail Location o toxo 2.oaa Feel :7 • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-08 cK Co gw41 �y� SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY Staff Report for the Planning Commission ©� Prepared: October 2, 2008 w xvi Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator d 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. Board of Supervisors: 11/12/08 Action Tabled 45 days by Planning Commission 'Fabled 30 days by Planning Commission Pending Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1203 Redbud Road (Route 661). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55 -A -129A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This application is for a 195 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 661, the VDOT facility which would Reviewed Planning Commission: 09/03/08 Planning Commission: 10/01/08 Planning Commission: 10/15/08 Board of Supervisors: 11/12/08 Action Tabled 45 days by Planning Commission 'Fabled 30 days by Planning Commission Pending Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1203 Redbud Road (Route 661). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55 -A -129A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This application is for a 195 -foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 661, the VDOT facility which would CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company October 2, 2008 Page 2 + +'+1� �'LlSir'ieSs, a Corr'�merClal PntranCe must hP proviae access to the proper-L Prior Lo fipeIaLioT�i of �i e constructed to our standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire and Rescue: Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: Building permit required for construction of telecommunications tower. Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code 2003. Structured plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a VA Licensed Design Professional for antenna attachment. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17 Special Inspections for this type structure, soils, concrete, bolts, etc. Note: All Chapter 1 VUSBC min. inspections shall be conducted by the Frederick County Inspections Staff. Request to utilize a third party inspection agency that complies with the Frederick County policy shall have prior approval granted by the Building Code Official. Winchester Regional Airport: We reviewed the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation dated March 12, 2008 in which the FAA has stated that marking and/or lighting will not be required by their agency. However, due to air medivac operations throughout the County and given that the site is within the Winchester Regional Airport's airspace, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority is requesting that lighting be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1K Change 2 as a condition for approval of this CUP. Applicant is required to file with the Virginia Department of Aviation and applicant should send a copy of the FAA Aeronautical Study and a quadrangle map showing the proposed tower location for their review and comment. Federal Aviation Administration: This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following conditions(s), if any, is(are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be. used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall_ not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studies structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the sale and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company October 2, 2008 Page 3 compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance or regulation of any Federal, State or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. Historic Resources Advisory Board: HRAB considered several of the potential benefits and impacts of the proposal, including the tower's possible impact: as related to the designated Scenic Byway as indicated on the FCC coverage map; on the entire area's viewshed; as related to the potential increase in coverage area as indicated on the FCC coverage map; as related to the potential increase in coverage levels and capacity within the area surrounding the tower, as shown on the applicant's coverage analysis map. The group also considered the applicant's explanation for ruling out possible co -location sites within the wider area, and the aesthetic measures that the applicant had recommended for mitigating the visual impact of the proposed tower. Ultimately, the HRAB felt that the benefits, in terms of additional coverage levels as shown in the applicant's coverage map, did not warrant the cost of the proposed tower's impact on the area's viewshed. Planning and Zoning: This Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for a proposed 195 foot monopole -type commercial telecommunication facility. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved CUP. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies that commercial telecommunication facilities may be subject to additional performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic values. The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County provides additional guidance when considering Conditional Use Permits. (See map 1) This proposed commercial telecommunication facility is located outside the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA), but is located within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) as indicated in the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. The NELUP component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) located adjacent to and surrounding this site. The objectives of NELUP, as related to Developmentally Sensitive Areas, are to indentify appropriate locations, to protect potentially significant historic resources as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey, and to ensure the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviews all land development proposals which impact the identified DSA. This proposed site is located along Redbud Road (Route 661), which has been designated as a Virginia Byway, approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 9, 2004. The designation of this road as a byway takes into consideration the scenic landscape, historic civil war battlefields, and environmentally significant nature of the area. The general surrounding area of this proposed site contains sites of significant historical importance. These sites include the Third Winchester Battlefield, Hackwood, and Milburn Road. All three of these sites are approximately one mile CUP 909-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company October 2, 2008 Page 4 from this proposed 195 foot monopole -type commercial telecommunication facility and may have a negative scenic impact on the aforementioned properties. This proposed use may also have a negative impact along Redbud Road Virginia Byway, the proposed Redbud Trail Greenway and within the Redbud Agricultural and Forrestal District, which includes this property. Frederick County has traditionally a higher expectation for land use actions with regards to properties located in its rural areas, scenic areas, along byways, and adjacent to DSA's. These performance standards are to ensure that scenic areas and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. Staff would note the subject property where this proposed 195 foot monopole -type commercial telecommunication facility will be located may not be consistent with the goals of the 2007 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; specifically, land use goals identified and established by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). Careful consideration of this CUP may be warranted in maintaining the goals set forth of NELUP plan. Back,around: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility and possible collocation structures in the proposed service area. This proposed 195 foot monopole -type telecommunication facility will be located on a 33 acre site on Redbud Road (Route 661). The applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities and possible co - location structures in the area. (See maps 2 - 4) Staff does not concur with the applicant that there are eligible existing facilities, or appropriate structures available for collocation in this general area. Staff has identified possible collocation sites within a three (3) mile radius of this proposed site. (See map 5) These possible sites may demonstrate satisfactory coverage in this area of the County. Therefore, the maps provided within the application, analyzing coverage need in this area may be insufficient to determine the adequacy of the search area, existing coverage, co -location structures, and capacity of the licensee holder in the vicinity of the proposed facility. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09/03/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This request is not in conformance with 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick Co_ u and the impacts associated with this request cannot be mitigated. However, should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, this proposed commercial telecommunication facility will be in conformance with Section 704 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company October 2, 2008 Page 5 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 09/03/08 MEETING: The applicant's representatives spoke about the collocation issue and they would prefer to collocate when they are able; they commented that construction of a tower is a huge investment and involves leasing and operating expenses. They noted the various structures within this area where they are currently collocating. The applicant's representatives considered the school site mentioned by the staff, but stated that it did not propagate well enough to meet their needs. They contended there was a demonstrated need for cell phone and broad band improvements in this particular area. Two adjoining property owners and one nearby resident spoke during the public comment portion of the public hearing. The concerns raised included health issues, the destruction of the viewshed along a designated Virginia Scenic Byway, the proposed location was within the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District, the local residents already have good cellular phone usage, the fact that local residents have gone to great lengths to preserve the rural nature of their community and this structure will not be in keeping with the rural and scenic nature of this part of the County. Members of the Commission believed the proposed tower location was too close to the DSA and a designated Virginia Byway; they agreed with the recommendations from the HRAB that the benefits in terms of additional coverage levels as shown on the applicant's coverage map did not warrant the cost of the proposed tower's impact on the area's viewshed; they also agreed with the staff's conclusions that the request was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the impacts cannot be mitigated. Commission members also mentioned the applicant had not provided convincing evidence that the tower was a necessity at this location. A motion recommendingdenial was made and seconded, but the motion failed due to the following tie vote: YES (TO REC. DENIM: Unger, Watt, Manuel, Ruckman, Kriz NO: Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company October 2, 2008 Page 6 ABSTAIN• Oates A new motion was made andsecondedto recommend approval with an amendment to Condition #6 correcting the terminology of the text to, "A Virginia registered professional engineer...," instead of, "A certified Virginia engineer..." This motion failed, however, due to the following tie vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Manuel, Ruckman, Kriz ABSTAIN• Oates A Commission member commented that many of the concerns that were raised centered on the fact that the applicant had not proven the tower is needed and given the opportunity to address this issue, some of the votes may change. Therefore, a motion was made and seconded to table 45 days to provide the applicant the opportunity to gather further information on this issue. This motion passed by a majority vote, as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Ruckman, Kriz ABSTAIN: Oates (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 10/01/08 MEETING: The Acquisition Manager for Shentel provided a presentation on why the applicant believed this site was important for seamless coverage and service performance for their customers. Two local residents came forward and spoke in opposition to the proposed tower and one resident spoke in favor. The residents in opposition talked about the visual impact of the tower; they did not believe Shentel had exhausted all possibilities for alternative sites; they already had adequate cell phone coverage; the structure is proposed along a Scenic Byway; and the site is within an Agricultural and Forestal District. The resident who spoke in support of the tower believed coverage was lacking and area residents needed adequate internet and 911 coverage. Numerous issues remained unresolved for members of the Commission, including: the proposed site was within an Agricultural and Forestal District; the proposed location was not in CUP 409-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company October 2, 2008 Page 7 nce with th,P 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan; the iYnp--cts associated . it- the ren„ec t LJVlllorl�al V V 1111 L11V t/ � , t/LLv vv Lll the 1 l�U JL cannot be mitigated; the County traditionally has higher expectations for land uses in rural areas along Scenic Byways; and the proposed location is within a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA). Due to the fact the Commission was rapidly approaching the 11:00 p.m. adjournment time stipulated in the Planning Commission's Bylaws, a motion was made and seconded to table the conditional use permit for 30 days. This motion passed unanimously. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained; Commissioners Watt and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) 55 A 10 y4 / PENTON E GLENN HiQ YQo hh �� " 55'' T 12 �Y PEGLTON E GLEN Y , lop !AB � r'PG Shenandoah Mobile Co Conditional Use Permit - New Cell Tower CUP 09 - 08 PIN: 55 - A - 129A Case Planner: Mark Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M'_ (Industrial. General District) ®Application BI (Business Neighborhood District} 4W 111H (Mobile Home Communist District) Urban D., clo ♦ �,� pmcnt Arca B7 (B- General D- Ir ss) 40 MS (Medical Support District) SWS.A 1• B3(Bus lass Industrial Tran lion Dist"ell .. RJ (Resideuttul Planned Conn 1 n1, Districp AGF Districts 4M' EM tE,t—n, M fact 1 g Distncli 4M R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) -M South Frederick District 4W HE (Higher Education Districti ---t RA (Rural oma UhlncU 4M Double Church District 40 Mtl (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residemial Peden ance Dunnett 40 Req 5utt.District Future STFF ,,RT 37 Hypass r 4 LU s C • ^ to \/'ower Lo ion 4} ee Y /�Y �Pr G%i to +. ` SS A129 CHK DRESS NATHAN D Q v I w I o� l S Red Bud �.✓ Ag 8 Foresfral District ---- _ ti 55 A 128C BREWER LINDA K TIMBROOK z �a n: 0. F K At 55 A 18 SEIPEL WAYNE D & STEPHANIE P 55 A 126 55 A 128 COOK JIM L COURNEYA 122 z ORNDORFFJOHND f g $ SUS4A1 ♦ 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet Shenandoah Mobile Co Conditional Use Permit - New Cell Tower CUP 09 - 08 PIN: 55 - A - 129A Case Planner: Mark Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M'_ (Industrial. General District) ®Application BI (Business Neighborhood District} 4W 111H (Mobile Home Communist District) Urban D., clo ♦ �,� pmcnt Arca B7 (B- General D- Ir ss) 40 MS (Medical Support District) SWS.A 1• B3(Bus lass Industrial Tran lion Dist"ell .. RJ (Resideuttul Planned Conn 1 n1, Districp AGF Districts 4M' EM tE,t—n, M fact 1 g Distncli 4M R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) -M South Frederick District 4W HE (Higher Education Districti ---t RA (Rural oma UhlncU 4M Double Church District 40 Mtl (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residemial Peden ance Dunnett 40 Req 5utt.District Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting 2D BOS Meeting r �/ APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner X other) NAME: Shenandoah Mobile Company ADDRESS: PO Box 459, 500 Shentel Way, Edinburg, VA 22824 TELEPHONE 540-9843003 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: David M. and A. Katherine Gregg, 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, VA 22603 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, VA 22603 -From 1-81 Exit 315 and Hwy 7 interchange proceed East i-4/1 0 mile to the left exit from Hwy 7. (left after the 2nd light after Sheetz). Turn left at the top of the onto Morgan Mill Rd and proceed 7/10 mile to Redbud Rd. Turn left and proceed 4/10 mile to driveway on the right. Follow to rear of property and turn left at the house Proceed past barn and corral to site. 4. The property has a road frontage of 604 feet and a depth of 2270 feet and consists of 33 acres. (Please be exact) 5 . The property is owned by David M and A. Katherine Gregg as evidenced by deed from Linda McGuinness recorded JUL 16 208 (previous owner) in deed book no. 800 on page 81 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 55 A 129A Record 0035860 Magisterial District Stonewall Current Zoning Rural Agricultural (RA) 7. Adjoining North East South West Property: USE Agricultural Agricultural Residential/Vacant Agricultrual ZONING RA RA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Telecommunications facility 0 It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: N/A 10. 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Glen E. Penton ADDRESS 221 Settler Lane, Stephenson, VA 22656 PROPERTY ID#55A 12 Record 029053 NAME Linda K. Brewer Timbrook ADDRESS 209 Bentley Avenue, Winchester, VA 2260a PROPERTY I D#55 A 128 Record 0037064 NAME William G. Meier III ADDRESS 270 Lick Run Xing, Stephenson, VA 22656 PROPERTY ID#55 7 5 Record#0029048 NAME Ernest L. Lam ADDRESS 1263 Redbud Road, Winchester, VA 22603 PROPERTY ID#55 A 14 Record#0015712 NAME Emma Harris ET ALS O/OKaren Sheilds ADDRESS 4922 Das iell PI, Woodbndge, VA 22192 PROPERTY ID# 55 A 13 ecor #0015711 NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTYJID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME _ ADDRESS I D# 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. Sketch attached. Full construction drawings included TAX MAP NUMBER 55—A -12 0A DAVID & KATHERINE GREGG SUBMITTALS DATE _ DESCRIPTION REVISION /27/071 PRELIMINARY 0 SITE ID: ! ! PROPOSED SFEL 100'xTION TAX MAP NUMBER 55—A -12 0A DAVID & KATHERINE GREGG SUBMITTALS DATE _ DESCRIPTION REVISION /27/071 PRELIMINARY 0 SITE ID: PROPOSED SHENTEL 12• `—+PROPOSED SRENIEL 145 WWE ACCESS DRIVE OFF OF MONOPOLE TOWER / EXISTING ORNE LOCATION LOCATION EXISTING TRAINING RING LOCATION ! EXISTING ACCESS / DRIVE LOCATION (TW.) r EXISTING DARN ! LOCATION / / / TING HOUSE /\ LOCATION 1 ` 1 � / ! ! J / z z 046 A - REDBUD SITE PLAN Dvnatek DYNATEK 6666 THLECOMMUNICAITONS SERVICES PROI. NO.: - 7134 Bmokleood Drive )RAVIN BY. TEL M.L. ; ti .;�ti, Emokfiold, off 44403 DWG. No.: REV MW COMPANY Ph -800.838-3224 .NECKED BY: F.:(330)448-4334 L-3 0D•C•B• rvvrvv.dpnnteklelecom.com PROPOSED SFEL 100'xTION LEASEE AREA REA LOCAipN I PROPOSED DOLOCATION''��YY FENCED PROPOSED SHENTEL 12• `—+PROPOSED SRENIEL 145 WWE ACCESS DRIVE OFF OF MONOPOLE TOWER / EXISTING ORNE LOCATION LOCATION EXISTING TRAINING RING LOCATION ! EXISTING ACCESS / DRIVE LOCATION (TW.) r EXISTING DARN ! LOCATION / / / TING HOUSE /\ LOCATION 1 ` 1 � / ! ! J / z z 046 A - REDBUD SITE PLAN Dvnatek DYNATEK 6666 THLECOMMUNICAITONS SERVICES PROI. NO.: - 7134 Bmokleood Drive )RAVIN BY. TEL M.L. ; ti .;�ti, Emokfiold, off 44403 DWG. No.: REV MW COMPANY Ph -800.838-3224 .NECKED BY: F.:(330)448-4334 L-3 0D•C•B• rvvrvv.dpnnteklelecom.com 12. Additional comments, if n_v: 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. to of Applicant t r Owl�'ers' Mailing'Address 1203 Redbud Road, Winchester, VA 22603 Owners' Telephone No. 540-323-0639 BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: M Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick,, Virginia Planning Office. County of Frederick, Virginia, 1077 North KeEt Street, Wjuchester, %'ir•gia; 22601 Phone 540-655-5651 Facsimile 540-665-5395 Kp_ow Ail Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Nary e) favid M. Gree 540-323-0639 (}hone) 1203 Redbud Load, Winchester, VA 22603 (Address) the owners) of all those tracts or parcels of land (" Property") conveyed to mu (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by 800 Instrument No. 081 an Page , and is described as 55 A 129A Marcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby snake, constitute and appoint: Lynn b. Koerner (144ire) - 540--335-0030 (Phone) (Address) 3126 South Ox toad, Edinburg, VA 22824 To act as my tree and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) naive, place and stead with fish power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Conditional Use Permits - Telecommunications Facilit:v - rsre+eie��eortl� lig and Site )t lard My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously N/A approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization sh�%1 ex ' e one year from the day it is signed, or until it is othenA,ise inded o modified In w" ss thereoa, (we) hereto set my (our) hand and sea] this day of Et , 200 Signatures State o Virgins Count o. �"� � .t L> , To it: iv '�tJa Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who sign d the foregoing inArament and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me a� has t acknowledged, the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this � day of_".1c��'� , 200J. 1 i� "' �tiF� `u✓' My Commission Expires: 6 3) 'otasy Public`1 KAREN P. HORN Notary Public Reg. #356391 My Commission Exps. Oct. 31, 20% EXISTING 20 4 COVERAGE 1 370 r.+•�"� gSnowden Bridge lof EMA Subdivision 378 177 85 0 R u1t irf cT— — %- h'kys Crossing 4 y 46 y 2'1PR POSED 377 77 � S I Hwy 50 74 Sp its Field`, 50 Milb k HS / Re0bud Run Elementary h 101 MY Hills 1 6 130 Hwy X 99 86 92 51 dl lo�w0 ti isY'11%0 f^ 513 2 cn I N 52 �► AA LW ENU 22 �� '167 In -Building Coverage, 84 dBm �, � � Y + ,r •r PROPOSED COVERAGE 370 370 177 I 377 Hwy so VRA m 3 2 927— 513 RV ®Snowden Bridge f EM Subdivision rf 85 01 RuLn&Mci-4,� h'tT,ys Crossing 46 � 2'1 AA PR POSED 7T SI Sp its Field\ 50 7$i Alb k HS / R00bud Run Elementary h 101% Hills Hwy 7 Z 130` 99 G & /cam .,S0 L r n, 52 APk LEGEND In -Building Coverage, -84 dBm 167 SITE 646 20 COVER f AGE 374 f EMA �� 378 177 85 Ruth—MM Crossing N 21 '-\,-377 77 Hwy 50 l 50 74 1 �� N m 3 Z Snowden Bridge Subdivision i' 46 ti PR POSED SI Sp its Field\� Ailb k HS / Re0bud Run Elementary h 1011 Hills Hwy 7 s .'J,11 so M1 ; n 3 ; 3 Ln 22 f, LEGEND In -Building Coverage, -84 dBm 1----PROPOST7 20 COVERAGE 370 i 378 177 / 5 21 377 w Hwy 50 a 50 tta ry 01 Hwy 7 X 30 f. 9�! 4:7 58 92AA so 513' cn N 52AA f 11 LEGEND 22 �// I a In -Vehicle Coverage, -98 dBm 167 _5 EXISTING 20 COVERAGE ' 379 f.M►•�'� Qwden Bridge f;ing S ivision 378 177 1 85 ® -Rut y' S Cr � by r qC 46 2'1 � � P ED ^y)377 77 "�P i Hwy 50 ^� . , F!e! 50 7d _ it bud Run Elementary O11 m 7 Hwy 7 130 = 99 f $G � 92'' 51 614 SO f^ 513 f � "4✓ _ -c I L r nNi 52 d A W LEGEND 22 �� In -Building Coverage, -84 dBm 167 MIn -Vehicle Coverage, -98 dBm 6 WINCHESTER SITES 378 377 370 177 Hwy 50 m 3 XI 5 20 Sites inside the circle are neighbor to the proposed site 046. Site 046 will provide relief in the MCU, Calls, & Drops currently being experienced by these sites. �'Snowden Bridge FEMA Subdivision 85 -•+�__� _ Rutherford Crossing j y 46 21 PR POSED . 7& SI 74 Sp its Field, 50 Oilbro k HS / ReVbud Run Elementary Sh 1011 fc� Hills WN,.—__HwY 7 ti,so f�n /fZ Ln N 5Z f� OPP LEGEND M Site 046 neighbor sites (5) . Rest of Winchester sites (14) Winchester: Minutes of Lisa -e (neighbor sites of Site ^46 'blue sites in previous slide) have a significant share of the MCU, Call Drops and Call Blocks happening in and around Winchester City Minutes of usage, MOO The 5 neighbor sites of Site 046 currently support 1/3 of the total subscriber activity in Winchester City. Site 046 would provide relief by taking some of these calls no Vinchester: Blocks and Call Blocks M Call Drops 046 Proposed Site 040 is expected to improve call drop and call block statistics which are currently high in the 5 neighbor sites in relation to all the sites serving Winchester Litt'. y 5ya(fetgc3`$ fp r Stephenson. HIT) C 3.00 mi i ti F 4q t}1rS C.rW-Q-e7. TI .7nty .f cy Sy -.: ?- @� j27 i r cY Fredenck ,n Noble Ln r Clarke 37, Fort Milroy o� irktss� 3t`�m , Fine Rd� y Shenandoah Htil 3 etc' Freden k ; Factory ` ,ctory rg� 11 A. 77 �7 � COUNTY of FREDERICK ci .. ;T s1�ssn.�is+�F�di�L ��➢I Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner - Subject: Planning Commission Discussion— Outdoor Lighting Date: October 2, 2008 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Outdoor lighting in Frederick County has become an issue over the past few years due to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance contains no standards to regulate their intensity or placement. The only requirement currently is that lighting doesn't create a nuisance due to glare. The Nuisance (§165-35) element of the ordinance states that "outdoor lighting shall be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets. Sources of lighting on a lot shall be hooded or controlled to prevent glare beyond the lot line". While this nuisance ordinance may have been sufficient in the past, with the rate of development the County has seen, this vague ordinance is not adequate. Therefore, staff has created draft lighting standards to help address these issues. The draft standards include elements that will apply to all outdoor lighting as well as portions that apply to nonresidential uses (commercial/industrial, etc.), as well as multifamily uses. New definitions that correspond to the lighting standards are included as well. The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) first considered this item at their June 2008 meeting. At the June meeting the commission had a few comments regarding the text and wanted to discuss the proposed amendment at the next meeting. After this meeting, the proposed ordinance was revised to address DRRS concerns as well as comments provided by the County Attorney. The DRRS discussed the proposed ordinance again at their August 28, 2008 meeting. Since the August meeting, the draft outdoor lighting ordinance has been modified to address comments provided by the DRRS. The attached documents show the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance as well as proposed definitions that correspond to the ordinance. 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 and Definitions. CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards 10/02/08 Outdoor Lighting Standards. The purpose and intent of this section is to establish outdoor lighting standards that reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass and overlighting; promote safety and security; and encourage energy conservation. A. Application and General Provisions. 1. Except as provided in F of this Section, these standards shall apply to the installation of new outdoor lighting fixtures or the replacement of existing fixtures. Replacement of a fixture shall mean a change of fixture type or change to the mounting height or location of the fixture. Routine lighting fixture maintenance, such as changing lamps or light bulbs, ballast, starter, photo control, housing, lenses and other similar components, shall not constitute replacement and shall be permitted provided such changes do not result in a higher lumen output. B. General Outdoor Lighting Standards. 1. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Parking lot fixtures and light fixtures on buildings shall be full cut-off fixtures. 2. Flashing, revolving, or intermittent exterior lighting visible from any property line or street shall be prohibited. High intensity beams, such as, but not limited to, outdoor searchlights, lasers or strobe lights shall be prohibited. 3. Light fixtures, including mounting base, shall not be more than twenty-five (25) feet in height above finished grade unless the Zoning Administrator determines that an increase in height, not to exceed ten (10) additional feet, would reduce the total number of light fixtures for the site and still meet the intent of the Ordinance. On land in the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts that is contained within an approved master development plan, the Zoning Administrator may allow light fixtures to exceed 35 feet in height if additional security is required, provided that the site is not adjacent to property used for residential or agricultural uses. In no case shall light fixtures in the M1 and M2 Districts exceed 45 feet in height. 4. Light fixtures shall be placed outside of the paved areas of a site. Lighting fixtures shall be placed within landscaped islands or in the perimeter green space of the site. 5. Building mounted lighting fixtures shall not be mounted more than thirty (30) feet above the finished grade of the building. 1 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards 10/02/08 6. Except for internally illuminated signs, the use of lighting fixtures, which are enclosed in clear or translucent white, off-white or yellow casing, shall not be permitted on the roofs of buildings or on the sides of canopies. 7. All lighting shall be oriented not to direct glare or excessive illumination onto streets in a manner that may distract or interfere with the vision of drivers on such streets. 8. Lighting used to illuminate flags, statues, signs or any other objects mounted on a pole, pedestal or platform, spotlighting or floodlighting used for architectural or landscape purposes, shall consist of full cut-off or directionally shielded lighting fixtures that are aimed and controlled so that the directed light shall be substantially confined to the object intended to be illuminated. Directional control shields shall be used where necessary to limit stray light. C. Photometric Plan Requirements 1. A Photometric Lighting Plan shall be submitted and approved in conjunction with any site plan required by Article XIX. Photometric plan submitted with site plans shall be current (less than 30 days old) and must be certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions (NCQLP), or a Virginia licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect or land surveyor. 2. All such required plans shall include the following: a) Plans indicating the location on the premises of all lighting fixtures, both proposed and already existing on the site, including a schematic layout of proposed outdoor lighting fixture locations that demonstrate adequate intensities and uniformity, and the light coverage resulting from the proposed lighting layout. b) Description of all lighting fixtures, both proposed and existing, which shall include but are not limited to catalog cuts and illustrations by manufactures that describe the equipment, including, lamp types, wattage and initial lumen outputs, glare control devices, lamps, proposed placement of all fixtures, including engineering detail of fixtures, manufacturer, model and installation of same. c) Photometric data, such as that furnished by manufactures, or similar showing the angle cut-off light emissions and glare -control devices. d) Mounting height of all fixtures: D. Outdoor Lighting Standards for Nonresidential Uses. 2 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards 10/02/08 1. The average maintained lighting levels for nonresidential uses shall not exceed the following standards: a) Five (5) foot-candles for parking lot and other areas. b) Ten (10) foot-candles along fronts of buildings and along main drive aisles. c) Thirty (30) foot-candles for high security areas, such as, but not limited to teller machines (ATM's), motor vehicle display areas and vehicle fuel station canopies, but not including parking lots. 2. Light fixtures under any canopy shall consist of full cut-off lighting fixtures where the light source is either completely flush or recessed within the underside of the canopy. The portions of the canopy not included in the sign area shall not be illuminated. 3. Lighting levels shall not exceed 0.2 foot-candles at any common property line with property zoned, used as or planned for residential or agricultural uses. In addition all light poles shall be equipped with supplemental opaque shielding on the residential property side of the lighting fixture to reduce glare caused by direct light source exposure. 4. Lighting levels shall not exceed 5.0 foot-candles at any common property line with property zoned or used for commercial or industrial uses. 5. Lighting levels shall not exceed 5.0 foot-candles at any edge of a property line adjacent to a street or road right-of-way. E. Outdoor Lighting Standards for Multifamily Uses. 1. The average maintained lighting levels for multifamily developments shall not exceed the following: a) 0.5 foot-candles at property line boundaries. b) Ten (10) foot-candles at buildings, parking lots and other areas. F. Exemptions from Lighting Ordinance. 1. Lighting fixtures and standards required by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations, or other federal, state agencies, to include street lights within the public right-of-way. 3 Draft - Outdoor Lighting Standards 10/02/08 -_— 'T'�a—_-.`. e_..e '- _-fyb-g:�peS T'�'�.�mLyl ^'..m.«.,.–®m•®.y.�. 2. Outdoor lighting fixtures required by law enforcement, fire and rescue, the Virginia Department of Transportation or other emergency response agencies to perform emergency or construction repair work, or to perform nighttime road construction on major thoroughfares. 3. Security lighting controlled and activated by motion sensor devices for a duration of 5 minutes or less, but not to exceed the applicable foot-candle limits stated elsewhere in this section. ARTICLE XXII Definitions §165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991] Foot -Candle — A measure of light falling on a surface. One (1) foot-candle is equal to the amount of light generated by one (1) candle shining on one (1) square foot surface located one (1) foot away. Foot- candle measurements shall be made with a photometric light meter with a specified horizontal orientation. Lighting Fixture — A complete lighting unit consisting of the lamp, lens, optical reflector, housing and an electrical components necessary for ignition and control of the lamp, which may include a ballast, starter and/or photo control. Lighting Fixture Directionally Shielded — A lighting fixture which emits a light distribution where some light is emitted at or above a horizontal plan located at the bottom of a fixture. Such fixtures may contain visors, louvers, or other types of shields or lenses which are designed to direct light onto a target area and to minimize stray light. Lighting fixture, full cut-off - A lighting fixture from which zero (0) percent of its light output is emitted at or above ninety (90) degrees from horizontal (a horizontal plane drawn through the bottom of the light fixture) and no more than ten (10) percent above eighty (80) degrees from the horizontal. Light fixture, recessed canopy — An outdoor lighting fixture recessed into a canopy ceiling so that the light source is either completely flush or recessed within the underside of the canopy. Maintained Lighting Level-- A level of illumination which results: when the initial; output, of..the_i.am.p is ,. reduced by certain light loss factors. Such light loss factors typically include lamp depreciation and dirt accumulation on lenses and other light fixtures components. For the purpose of this Chapter, the maintained lighting level shall represent an average foot-candle level measured over a specified area. 4 FIG. 1, EXAMPLES OF FULL CUT-OFF LIGHTING FIXTURES , 4av - `"..,,,..—*.rte i - •..�.- _..e. [ t w "' -_ ARCHITECTURAL/LANDSCAPE LIGHTING — DIRECTIONALLY SHIELDED F3 Lighting used for architectural/landscaping lighting shall be aimed and controlled so that light is confined, as much as possible, to the objects that are intended to be lit. I41�1 "house -side shielding" SUPPLEMENTAL OPAQUE SHIELDING (ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL) COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 546/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation RE: Transportation Plan Update DATE: September 30, 2008 This is a discussion item for the Commission to give staff input and feedback on the upcoming update of the transportation section of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Attached please find a rough outline of the planned content for the update. You will find this is an expansion upon the existing transportation plan in a number of ways. Most notable is the expansion from the Eastern Road Plan concept to a County -wide master transportation plan. Staff appreciates any and all feedback you may provide as we begin to work with the Transportation Committee to draft this plan update. Attachments JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Transportation Master Plan Content Outline 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction a. Purpose and Goal 3. Policies a. Complete Streets i. Accomodating multiple use types on our streets b. Access Management i. Control of many roadway features to improve safety and traffic flow c. Design Standards i. Urban ii. Rural iii. Industrial 4. Surface Transportation a. Automobile b. Transit c. Bike and Peds 5. Freight Movement 6. Rail Transportation a. Specifically analyze the future of passenger and freight rail to Frederick County 7. Air Transportation a. Incorporate long range plans of the Regional Airport COUNTY df FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5,651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan Update DATE: October 1, 2008 Staff would like to take this opportunity to update the Planning Commission with the status of the recently initiated Stephens City Joint Land Use Plan Update, On Thursday, September 25, 2008, Frederick County and the Town of Stephens City Joint Land Use Committee met to discuss the evaluation of the Joint Future Land Use Plan approved by the County and Town in 2003. Initial discussions focused around land use designations, locations and definitions, and transportation improvements. It is the goal of the Joint Committee to endorse changes to the Joint Land Use Plan that are consistent with the intent of the original plan, consistent with the Joint Annexation Agreement, that take into consideration the growth of the community since the original plan was approved, and that are positive enhancements to the future growth and development of the community. The Joint Land Use Committee is scheduled to meet on October 7, 2008 to endorse proposed updates to the Joint Future Land Use Plan. At this time, staff is working on the updated land use map and several additions and clarifications to the text of the Plan. This is being done in conjunction with the Town's staff. It is the intent of the Joint Land Use Committee to present a recommendation to the respective governing bodies, the Town Council and the Board of Supervisors that could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Policy Plans of each community. The information presented to the Joint Land Use Committee will be presented to the Commission at your October 15, 2008 meeting. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MTRJbad 107 North Rent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 :� • C� MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP� Deputy Director COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development RE: Route 11, North East Frederick Land Use Plan Update Effort DATE: October 1, 2008 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Over the past several months, the CPPS's Community Area Plan Subcommittee, in conjunction with the Frederick County Transportation Committee and others, has been meeting in an effort to review and update the North East Frederick Land Use Plan. This study effort is ongoing. The group's initial efforts have attempted to identify and understand a variety of important issues, both current and future, and promote a coordinated approach to addressing the future of this rapidly evolving part of the County. The North East Land Use Plan Update provides the County with the opportunity to proactively refine the plan for this growing area of the community and provide guidance to those looking to implement the County's long range plan. At this time, Staff would like to take this opportunity to discuss this study effort with the Planning Commission, ensure that the Commission is aware of the effort, and receive any comments that the Commission may have. Staff will make a presentation to the Commission which will include a summary of the effort to date and an overview of the land use plan and map update. In general, the North East Frederick Land Use Plan Review and Update to date seeks to address the following: Transportation. Transportation remains a key component of this Community Area Plan with Route 37, Interstate 81, and Route 11 continuing to play a vital role in the growth and development of this area. New north south road connections, in addition to new east west connections over the interstate, are being evaluated. The redesign of Exit 321 at Clearbrook, including the evaluation of three different alternatives to address this interchange, is being evaluated as part of 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Route 11 North East Frederick Land Use Plan Review and Update October 1, 2008 Page 2 this exercise. The role of the railroads in the future of this part of the County has also been an ongoing consideration. Land use. An evaluation of current land uses and proposed modifications to the future land use designations, including potential additional areas, areas of prioritization, and locations for targeted land uses, is ongoing. Ensuring a strong nexus between the land use designations and the other components of the study update is a major consideration. Community Facilities. The County's community facility providers have collaborated and evaluated their current and future needs in this part of the County. The most critical need identified is that of the Clearbrook Fire and Rescue community who are looking at an immediate need to relocate and expand into an area that would better serve this part of the County. A particular emphasis has been to ensure that the necessary infrastructure components needed to support the County's Economic Development strategies are available. This includes water and sewer, electricity, gas, and communications. Developmentally Sensitive Areas. DSA's, including historical, recreational, and environmental resources, continue to be a strong component of this land use plan. The characteristics of the Red Bud Run area as its own unique DSA are recognized. This area will continue to form the southern boundary of the North East Land Use Plan. The Plan will clearly identify the rural areas of the County from the more concentrated development of the Urban Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area and promote the Rural Community Centers of Clearbrook, Stephenson, and Brucetown. As stated previously, any input and direction that the Commission would like to provide at this time would be greatly appreciated. MTR/bad :� • C� COUNTY of FREDER SCK Department of Planning and Development 540/6(5-5651 FAX: 546/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Directo� SUBJECT: Discussion - Annual Review of the Planning Commission Bylaws DATE: October 1, 2008 In conformance with the adopted Planning Commission Bylaws, each fall the Commission shall conduct an annual review of the Bylaws. At the Commission's October 15, 2008 meeting, we will initiate the annual review of the Bylaws, as well as the Roles and Responsibilities documents — two important documents that guide the operations of the Planning Commission. Staff will be available at the Commissions meeting to learn of any suggestive revisions to the documents. Please contact me should you have questions. Attachments: Planning Commission Bylaws Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities ERL/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Adopted 4/2/08 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 Coup . 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 prior to attending their first two (2) Planning Comm ,z6 n meetings_ -1- ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 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 full 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 assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: -2- 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 Cormnission. 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. 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 -3- 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. Two executive committee members will serve as co -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. 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 later 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 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, -4- 1950, as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the ad,; ournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VO'T'ING 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 - OPERA'T'ING RULES 8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting 8-1-1 Call to Order 8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda 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 -5- 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: 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. Nem 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, 1950, 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 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. -7- 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 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. 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 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and in all cases the Commission shall adjourn by 11:00 P.M. 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. FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Adopted 4/2/08 This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion document to the Commission's By -Laws. APPLICATION COMMUNICATIONS There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. They are ex -parte communications, staff reports and public input. Ex -Parte Communications: Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements_ Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Commissioner shall be made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff Application Briefings/Work Sessions: Prior to the first public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning Commissioners, with an invitation extended to the Board of Supervisors to participate, regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated / controversial to warrant detailed explanation. The purpose is to appraise the Commissioners regarding the details of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically complete prior to scheduling the briefing. Page 1 of 3 The Planning Commission may request a work session for an application which, after the first public hearing is concluded, is subsequently tabled. The purpose of the work session is to discuss amongst each other and with staff details of the application, any revised proffers provided or anticipated by the applicant, and other improvements which could be made to the application. For either a briefing or a work session- -The applicant should attend, but will not have an active role. The format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8-3-10 of the Commission's By -Laws will be used- -In no case will the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning Commission be changed. Public Hearing/Meeting: Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or information from the public. When possible specific time limitations will not be used_ However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy regarding an application. One constant during this process on both the part of the public, the applicant and the Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion. Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable. COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT: Each Commissioner shall be committed to preparing for and keeping knowledge current in order to do the most effective job for the community. New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is supported by the Planning Department budget Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples Page 2 of 3 include CPEAV's annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning Association's readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Planning office. COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, other governmental or family reasons should notify the Commission Chairman and/or staff Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be noted. It may affect quorum considerations. Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission's meetings in order to use not only the Commission's but the staff's and public's time wisely. COMMISSION COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the Chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month meeting. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the County Attorney is the correct resource. Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary (with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is concluded. PUBLIC REPRESENTATION: Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is a public item that is of interest, the Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity and directed to do so. Implied endorsements by the Commission should be avoided. Page 3 of 3