Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 08-02-06 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia August 2, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB I ) June 21, 2006 Minutes and July 5, 2006 Minutes............................................................ (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Conditional Use Permit #03-06 of Rebecca and Edward Arnette for a Landscaping Contractor Business. This property is located at 819 Redbud Road (Route 661), and is identified with Property Identification Number 55-A-2 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Henry......................................................................................................................... (B) PUBLIC MEETING 5) Master Development Plan #07-06 of Orrick Commons, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to develop 55.67 acres with a mixed use commercial/residential development. The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, with frontage on both roadways, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 55-A-201 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (C) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 6) Planning Commission Bylaws Mr. Lawrence................................................................................................................... (D) 7) Other FILE COPY C7 i • 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 June 21, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Candice E. Mills, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of the meeting of May 17, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Baard (HRAB) — 06/20/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed two items. The first was a subdivision on the southern edge of Route 7, along Valley Mill Road, regarding buffers and a roadside pull -off kiosk. The second item was a proposed business rezoning along the Albin area. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1782 Minutes of June 21., 2006 0 M fl -A F T -2— Sanitation Authority (SA) — 06/20/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the flow for May was down somewhat because of the lack of rain. He said the SA discussed the expansion of their administrative building, which will be placed out to bid within the next month or so. Also discussed was a request by Trouts Unlimited for a hook-up to water downstream, closer to the Opequon. He said the SA is going to work with Trouts Unlimited to see what can be done to move the connection where the water for the trout will not be disturbed. Commissioner Unger reported that the final item of discussion was a public hearing on availability fees, which are scheduled to increase July 1. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 06/20/06 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that WPC continued their discussion on Overlay Districts, which they are in the process of developing throughout the City. He explained that the Overlay District is a mixed-use district and the Planning Commission is trying to fine-tune it to address concerns raised by some of the local businesses. Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC also approved a subdivision request by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. for five lots at Cider Mill Lane. In addition, they approved an ordinance to vacate approximately one-half acre of unimproved right-of-way on Caroline Street, with a conveyance to the Winchester Medical Center. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wihnot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on the Planning Commission's agenda for this evening. Mr. Charles Harbaugh, a resident of South Hayfield Road in the Back Creek District, came forward to ask for the Commission's assistance in cleaning -up an illegal trucking operation located across from his home. Mr. Harbaugh stated that in 2004, his neighbor, Mrs. Wine, filed a complaint about this same trucking company, which is directly in front of her home. He said the trucking_ company has at least three tractor and trailers operating day and night. Mr. Harbaugh said he has filed complaints with the Planning Staff. He reported the owner of the company was charged on Thursday with "improperly storing trucks and heavy equipment in an area zoned rural," and the owner and his wife were placed on two years' probation. Mr. Harbaugh said the owner did not discontinue his operations and last Saturday, he had four tractor -trailer trucks going in and out of his property. Mr. Harbaugh also pointed out that these trucks use a private road from South Hayfield Road to Route 614. Mr. Harbaugh asked if the Commission could look into this situation and do something to stop this illegal operation. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Page 1783 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #07-06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for four single- family, detached residential dwellings. The property is located on Senseny Road (Rt. 657), approximately 350 feet west of Ashley Drive (Route 63). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 65-A-46 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the County's engineer has identified the need to provide storm water management analysis with the development of the property. Mr. Ruddy stated access to the site would be in the form of a new public street with a public cul-de-sac, thus avoiding any additional access points on Senseny Road (Rt. 657). He said the applicant's proffer statement includes a commitment to making the required frontage improvements to Senseny Road, including any necessary right-of- way dedication, lane widening, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. He said the applicant has also proffered a contribution of $5,000 per residential lot to assist with off-site transportation improvements. Mr. Ruddy said the proffered frontage improvements, in conjunction with the monetary proffer, would appear to achieve the desired transportation enhancements in the immediate vicinity of this project. Mr. Ruddy added that the applicant has addressed the community facility impacts consistent with the development impact model and has proffered an appropriate contribution of $23,290 per residential unit. In summary, Mr. Ruddy said the applicant's proffer statement includes the commitment to develop four single- family detached residential dwellings, the provision of a Generalized Development Plan, a commitment to frontage improvements on Senseny Road, an off-site mitigation proffer in the amount of $4,500 per lot, a monetary contribution in the amount of $23,290 to mitigate impacts associated with community facilities, and the creation of a homeowners association for the purpose of managing open areas and providing curb -side pick-up of solid waste. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy said the Senseny Road Rentals rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Kriz asked the staff why comments from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue disagreed with the impact model. Mr. Ruddy said the Development Impact Model is clear as far as the impacts for each service facility and the applicant has met the current development impact model calculations. Aside from that, Mr. Ruddy referred additional questions directly to the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. Mr. John Lewis with Painter -Lewis, PLC was available on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Carl Hales of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. No other questions or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning 407-06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for four single- family, detached residential dwellings. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission11 A �Page 1784 DMinutes of June 21, 2006 �� J::�{ T -4 - Rezoning 908-06 of the Shawnee Drive (Mitchell & Webb) property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for office use. The property is located on Shawnee Drive, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Route 11 and Shawnee Drive, on the right side of the road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 63-A-104 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action- Recommended Approval with Proffers Planner Candice E. Perkins reported the Shawnee Drive rezoning application is a request to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) to accommodate an office building with a maximum square footage of 9,000 square feet. Ms. Perkins said the parcel is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). She added that the applicant has submitted a proffer statement which voluntarily places several conditions on the proposed development of the property with the intent of mitigating potential impacts. She summarized the proffers, which included the submission of a Generalized Development Plan; to prohibit access onto Route 11 and limit site access to Shawnee Drive only; to provide a five-foot sidewalk along Shawnee Drive; and the contribution of $1,000 to be paid to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company for impacts to fire control services. Commissioner Morris asked for the staff to summarize the kind of buffering required between the B2 (Business General) and the residential properties to the east. Ms. Perkins replied that a 50 -foot full screen, consisting of a 25 -foot active and 25 -foot inactive buffer, is required. She explained that the inactive portion of the buffer will not contain any pavement or structures; it generally contains a board -on -board fence and three trees per ten linear feet. Mr. John Lewis with Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. was representing the owner, Mr. Linden Vann, and the applicant, Mr. Jim Webb with Mitchell & Webb, LLC. Mr. Lewis commented that despite the fact the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for industrial use in this area, the parcel is really too small for an industrial use. He said it was not really suitable for residential and an office use is probably the best use for this particular lot. Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Lewis if he had any direct conversations with the surrounding neighbors about any issues they might have. Mr. Lewis replied no. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. No other questions or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and second by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #08-06 of the Shawnee Drive (Mitchell & Webb) property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for office use. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Q -5— Consideration of modifications to the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The UDA and SWSA boundaries are components of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. An evaluation of the UDA and SWSA boundaries has identified eight general areas where differences with the boundaries occur or where inconsistency with the land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan has been recognized. The modifications to more appropriately reflect the Comprehensive Policy Plan would result in a reduction of approximately 6,624 acres to the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,495 acres to the SWSA. Action — Recommended a Tabling Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, came forward to present the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary modifications to the Planning Commission. Mr: Ruddy explained that .prior to moving forward with the more creative and pro -active portions of the UDA Study, it was important to make certain that the SWSA and UDA boundaries appropriately reflected the current land use plan and that the SWSA and UDA boundaries were consistent with each other and with logical boundaries. He began by describing the primary land use concepts of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He next identified eight general areas throughout the County where consistency was needed with the underlying land use concepts of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. A series of slides with the SWSA and UDA existing and modified boundaries were shown to assist with the explanation. Mr. Ruddy concluded his presentation by stating that the modifications would result in an approximate reduction of 6,624 acres of the UDA and the reduction of about 1,495 acres within the SWSA. He said that although the numbers seem large, it does not change the underlying land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan or enable something different to occur than what is currently envisioned. Mr. Ruddy also noted that while the County is not required to do so, the department has sent out notification to all of the property owners that could be identified and could possibly be impacted either through addition or subtraction. In addition, some additional notification was done for those property owners who were adjacent to those SWSA expansion areas, at the request of the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Morris asked the staff to briefly inform everyone as to why the County does not believe any of these changes would result in a "taking." Mr. Ruddy replied that the underlying land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are not being changed. He explained, for example, areas previously identified for industrial or commercial uses will remain as industrial and commercial uses. Commissioner Mohn inquired if the staff had a map available that would show where the most recently submitted CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments) applications were located relative to the proposed boundary modifications. Mr. Ruddy did not have a map available at this evening's meeting; he said those applications will be presented at the next CPPA public hearing on July 10, 2006. He noted that seven submissions were anticipated to be considered. Commissioner Mohn asked if there was a reason why the boundary adjustments are moving ahead of the CPPA process. Mr. Ruddy explained that the exercise would ensure appropriate locations and consistent boundaries for the UDA Study and to provide an appropriate set of boundaries to evaluate those CPPA amendments. Not only was Commissioner Mohn concerned about how the boundary exercise was moving relative to the CPPA process, but he was also concerned about how it was proceeding relaLive ♦ O dhe rest as4tule JAA Study. He fbt +uh.e boundary adjus0ents were a critical component of the overall study and he questioned if the lire was pulled back with this exercise, would it be pushed out again sometime in the future with the UDA Study. Commissioner Mahn said it concerned him that by making some of these decisions through this process ahead of the rest of the study and the CPPAs, that the County may be potentially closing the door on some opportunities or significantly influencing future discussions. Frederick County Planning Commission ' jll rplA1 Page 1786 Minutes of June 21, 2006 'e,�J +tlnt�d !lf�UUU► Commissioner Oates asked how persons would be affected who have already submitted plans and paid their fees for applications or CPPA amendments. Mr. Ruddy said that applications already submitted to the County would be considered in the usual process. He said that at such time as this would be adopted, then those applications would be evaluated upon the new approved lines. Commissioner Mohn again raised the CPPA issue. He presented a scenario of a property which is currently split by the UDA or adjacent to the UDA and next month the new boundary changes go into affect. The evaluation is now based on the new boundaries, which could mean the property is no longer partially in the UDA or no longer adjacent to it; he said it seemed as though the applications could be in some way prejudiced. Mr. Ruddy did not expect that to be the case; he said that each application would stand on its own merits, particularly if it's in the vicinity and has the endorsement of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chairman Wilmot next declared the public hearing open. Chairman Wilmot said the Commission would take public comments according to the individual areas. Area #1 North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. Mr. Clay Athey, an attorney with the law firm of Napier, Pond, Athey & Athey, said he was present on behalf of his clients, Glen and Pamela Russell, the owners of Tax Map Parcels 43-A- 15B and 43-A- 16. Mr. Athey said his clients have a pending rezoning application, which was considered at the Planning Commission's May 17, 2006 meeting and is scheduled to be heard at the Board of Supervisors' July 26, 2006 meeting. He said the Planning Staff's proposal will take these properties out of the UDA. Mr. Athey said he found himself in the unique position that if the boundary modifications are passed, the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors will have his rezoning application to rezone property consistent with the UDA and either before or immediately after that, it will be the staff's recommendation to take the same area out of the UDA. Mr. Athey requested that there be. some delay of discussion with respect to his two parcels until the rezoning application could be considered by the Board. He also raised the issue of a "taking" with respect to these properties and secondly, whether or not his client has any vested rights. Mr. Athey said his client purchased this properly because it was iri the UDA. It was Mr. Athey's opinion that it has always been the policy of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors whereby land within the UDA was permitted to be rezoned residentially. In conclusion, it was Mr. Athey's opinion that the UDA line was a part of the Comprehensive Plan and if the underlying land use designations were inconsistent, then changes should be made to the language rather than the boundary lines. Mr. Athey said that based on his analysis, it appears a great majority of these changes occur where properties are partially within the UDA and it also brings about all of the CPPA applications. He commented it had previously been the County's general policy that if part of a parcel is within the UDA, then the County will attempt to get the whole parcel within the UDA; however, this new policy seems to indicate that if part of your land is in the UDA, then the County is going to take the remainder of it out. Mr. Athey said his client also owns land in the Stephens City area; he said they have no problem with removing that property since the land is now obviously within the limits of the Town of Stephens City; he said he agreed with that part of the reduction because it was consistent. Mrs. Sue Deets said she was a property owner on Route 11 North on Martinsburg Pike, just south of Zuckermans and before McCann's Lane. Mrs. Deets said she received a letter and she wanted to know why and what it means to them as homeowners. She was hoping it meant they would be able to get public sewer to her property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Page 17217 -7 - Mr. Hurley Osten, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he wanted to speak regarding Mr. Athey's comments; he said Mr. Athey's contention is that his rezoning petition is a consistent -use issue. Mr. Osten believed the County needed to consider the UDA and SWSA boundary modifications before it heard Mr. Athey's rezoning petition because the decision on where growth should occur or where high-density areas should be located needed to be made first. Mr. Harold Schneider, a resident on Glendobbin Road, said the road through this area is not suited for high-density development. Mr. Schneider said this is a very rural area and is not suited for a subdivision like the one Mr. Athey is proposing. Mr. Brad Katz, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he addressed the Planning Commission on previous occasions regarding Mr. Athey's RusselUGlendobbin proposal. Mr. Katz said he had two issues. The first is whether or not the property is within the UDA and whether or not it is consistent with surrounding uses. He said the parcel Mr. Athey is referring to is directly adjacent to the industrial park and the proposed rezoning is to make the area RP (Residential Performance), rather than RA (Rural Areas), which would increase the density and make the project less consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Katz added that he supported the boundary line modifications in this area. Area #2 Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenson Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property lines. Retention of SWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery property. Mr. Greig Aitken, a resident of the Stonewall District, said that he and his wife, Toni were the owners of historic Jordan Springs. Mr. Aitken did not think enough notification time was given; he said on June 17, he received a notification letter, dated June 15, and today is June 21. Mr. Aitken said that he and his wife purchased Jordan Springs five years ago and have restored, maintained, and preserved the property. He talked about some of the community activities that have taken place at Jordan Springs, such as the Christmas events, charity events, and Apple Blossom activities. Mr. Aitken said last week, he received a historic plaque for Jordan Springs from the Board of Supervisors and this week, he was told his property would be removed from the UDA and the SWSA. He was very much opposed to his property being removed from the SWSA and the UDA because it would not only destroy his business, but it will negatively impact the value of his property and consequently,, they will be unable to ensure the historical protections they have undertaken. Mr. Aitken was concerned that he would lose his business, his land, his personal home, and he will be unable to employ the current staff of 27. Mr. Aitken asked if this decision to remove the property from the UDA and SWSA had already been made; he asked if any of the public input will be incorporated into the decisions; and he asked why this was being done because it will affect the landowners, as well as all the residents in Frederick County. Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, an attorney with Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., said that he was present on behalf of several property owners in this area and some of the other areas as well. Mr. Lawson said he agreed with Mr. Athey, who previously spoke, that many of the properties which are partially within the UDA and SWSA are the ones being considered for CPPAs and rezonings; his clients' properties fall into this category. He said he understood the CPPA process involved presenting site-specific issues before a committee and ultimately, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, to study a property in detail; the consideration involved examining the surrounding properties, nearby road networks, and available utilities, etc., so a decision could be made on a Comprehensive Plan basis which incorporates the UDA and SWSA, and ultimately, whether those properties should be rezoned. Because this process was so extensive, he questioned the appropriateness of the staff making a broad -brush proposal to take thousands of acres out of the UDA and SWSA with minimal study. Mr. Lawson believed this exercise was intended as a directive from the County to property owners as to where growth will be and unfortunately, for many property owners and his clients, a case where growth will not be. He Frederick County Planning Commission ® Page 1788 Minutes of June 21, 2006 M M ](11 1;3 did not think it was appropriate and was in direct conflict with the County's other policies and procedures. Mr. Lawson said that instead of making this proposal the first step of the UDA and SWSA Study, which appears to be a shrinking of these areas, he suggested it be studied first, individual sites examined, the impacts and surrounding properties studied, and then a decision -made. Area #3 Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and.part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7, Route 7 consistent northern boundary. There were no public comments regarding this area. Area #4 South East section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulphur Springs Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines. Mr. Carl Rinker with Urban Engineering said he was representing Mr. Eugene Grove, Jr. and Mr. Eugene Grove, Sr. Mr. Rinker said the Grove's property will be split in half by this proposal, running centrally north and south. He said the existing line goes a little below the Grove's property and actually passes through one of his Iower tracts, and then goes up in a triangular shape, into one of the upper tracts. Mr. Rinker said the Groves currently have an application before the Commission to move the entire line down to Sulphur Springs Road; they believed Sulphur Springs Road is a more naturally -inhabited boundary for this property than centrally cutting through the tracts and severing them in two. He noted this land is currently leased as farmland; however, there is hard -pan shale underneath and it was not really conducive for grazing cattle or sheep. He said the property would be more suited to development and housing. Mr. Rinker said the Groves purchased this property a number of years ago with development in mind. He said with easy accessibility to Sulphur Springs Road, there were several amenities planned to be proffered with their application; one is the possibility of a 15 -acre -school site, directly on site, and the other is the possibility of some area for day care or similar type of facility. Mr. Rinker stated that the property is not conducive to industrial or commercial. Considering the amount of traffic traveling down Sulphur Springs Road, he said the area is more conducive to housing. He pointed out a small subdivision to the north which abuts the Grove's property; he said several roads were left to empty into the Grove's property. Mr. Rinker urged the Commission to consider this property for adjustment ofboth the SWSA and UDA line down to Sulphur Springs Road, rather than cutting through the middle of the Grove's property. Mr. Rinker added that severing the property in two immensely decrease's the value of the real estate. Area #5 East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport, Carpers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulphur Springs Road. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. Mr. J. R. Shockley said he was told by engineers, lawyers, and supervisors that the UDA line would not be moved. He stated that his property is impacted by moving the line back and forth. Mr. Shockley suggested that the Commission wait and move the line one time correctly, versus moving it now and then considering a number of applications that will not have much success with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Shockley said he was in a unique area because of the schools locating in this area. He said that moving the line back and forth creates uncertainty. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Page 1789 ME Mr. R. J. Turner, a resident of the Back Creek District, said he wanted to speak as a concerned citizen, as a real estate broker, and as a large -tract property owner who could work with Mr. Groves to help solve a lot of problems. Mr. Turner said he -owned property in the Shawnee District on Cedar Creek Grade, which is his wife's store, trading as Homespun, and which also received a historic plaque from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Turner said he next wanted to speak as a real estate broker and he read several headlines from articles that appeared in the local newspaper, the Winchester Star, about Frederick County. The subject of the articles dealt with growth eliminating the need for tax increases in 2007, the decreasing farmlands, the expansion of the SWSA towards the west, and an EDC report indicating that very little land was remaining in Frederick County for development. He said today, the Winchester Star reported a lack of public parks in eastern Frederick County. Using a display map, he pointed out 85 acres to the north, adjacent to the County's landfill, and said he would develop the property with soccer fields and a park, if they sold him the property, or work with -them in the development of those facilities. He noted that John Lewis is his engineer and Sympoetica will be his design planners. Mr. Turner believed Greenwood Road could be straightened to some degree, a connection could be made to Route 50, and improvements could be made to Sulphur Springs Road. Mr. Turner did not think it was in the best interests of the County to remove this property from the SWSA and the UDA. Area #6 Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint Land use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA. There were no public comments regarding this area. Area #7 Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Lane use designation conformance. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village residential area to be noted within the plan. There were no public comments regarding this area. Area ##8 Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. There were no public comments regarding this area. Chairman Wilmot next called for anyone who wished to speak generally on the concept of the modifications with any comments not already made. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Kriz asked the staff to explain how the original boundaries were drawn when the UDA was first established for Frederick County. Mr. Ruddy replied that back in 1998, when the original UDA boundaries were established, it was evaluated -and based upon drainage areas; not all of each drainage area was included, but fundamentally, it revolved around drainage areas. Mr. Ruddy said since that time when the UDA concept was created, there have been various modifications and they have followed different consistent boundaries. In some cases it was roads, in Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Page 1790 -10 - other cases property lines, and still other cases, drainage areas. Commissioner Triplett asked what would be the result if no boundary modifications are made. Mr. Ruddy said there are areas of inconsistency between the boundaries and the underlying land use plan and that is probably the biggest concern, along with evaluating applications as they come forward. In addition, Mr. Ruddy said there would not be that foundation to enable other things to happen with the UDA Study. Mr. Ruddy emphasized that the land use designations, be they industrial, commercial, residential, and in some cases rural areas, would not be changed through this process. Commissioner Triplett said he believed there was. an underlying feeling by the property owners that a property removed from the UDA would be devalued and there is a concern they may not be able to do what they would like with their property. Commissioner Unger pointed out there were four areas with no public comments which consisted of about 1,300 acres. Commissioner Unger said if someone purchased land because it was in the UDA, he found it difficult to support an action that would remove this classification from their property. He was in support of getting the boundary lines straightened out, but was concerned about the possible affect on the property owners. Commissioner Light suggested for the CPPA process this year, the Commission should not act on properties within Areas 1, 21 4, and 5 because they were probably in some active application process. He commented that some of the persons who spoke this evening had alluded to this fact. He said if a property is under any type of active application process, it should not be acted upon until after the Commission gets past either their application or the CPPA amendment process. Commissioner Light said that if the application fails through the amendment process, essentially what the Board of Supervisors has determnied is the amendment was not appropriate. Then afterward, it could be considered for boundary line adjustment. Commissioner Morris believed the land use issues need to be reconciled; however, he agreed with those who expressed the opinion that approving the changes without consideration ofthe CPPA applications coming forward was a bit premature and may prejudice the review of those proposals. He suggested that the uncontested areas go forward and not be held up. Commissioner Kriz also agreed to move ahead on the areas that were not contested and those areas that were contested could be tabled or delayed until after the CPPA process has gone through. Commissioner Mohn commented that even though there were some areas where no one stood before the Commission and contested something specifically, the Commission may be remiss to assume there are not active applications or there are not concerned interests about those particular boundaries. He stated that, from an equity perspective, if the Commission is considering tabling any, then all of the areas should be tabled. Commissioner Mohn said he understood the intent and agreed with many of the boundary "clean-ups" and believed this would happen through the UDA Study process; however, he was concerned about sacrificing some of the integrity of the UDA Study and the CPPA process as the County goes forward. Commissioner Mohn then made a motion to table the entire UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification package until not only after the CPPA process has concluded, but also to coincide with the conclusion of the UDA study, or at least until the subcommittee is deeper into the UDA Study, in order to allow the underlying land uses to be examined and everything is able to be brought together comprehensively. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. The vote to table was unanimous. (Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Page 1791 Conditional Use Permit #10-05 of William Broy for an off -premise business sign. This property is located at 3605 Valley Pike and is further identified with P.I.N. 63-A-84 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Commissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry, reported that this conditional use permit (CUP) request is for a proposed off -premise business sign along the Route 11 South corridor, which requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Henry said the proposed use will be located on roughly one-third acre in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District. He said the sign will be required to be set back from the property line ten feet and contain no more than 50 square -feet in area, as agreed upon by the applicant. This will be a monument -style sign. Mr. Henry explained that the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically states that off-site signs along Route 11 South shall be prohibited and/or limited to monument style; the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for off -premise business signs in the B3 Zoning District with an approved CUP. Mr. Henry stated that based upon the size, type, and location of the proposed sign, staff believes it will not deteriorate the character of the area. Mr. Henry next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find the request to be appropriate. Commissioner Krizz-asked the staff if this request was the same one brought before the Commission about two months ago. Mr. Henry said it was the same CUP, but the proposed sign has been modified. Mr. William E. Broy, the owner and applicant, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Broy if the proposed CUP was for him to construct a monument -style sign and lease space for the businesses in Commonwealth Court. Mr. Broy replied yes. Commissioner Mohn asked Mr. Broy if he was comfortable with the condition that he could only lease sign space to businesses on Commonwealth Court. Mr. Broy said there are a limited number of businesses existing on Commonwealth Court; however, in the future, Commonwealth Court will connect to an available 12 acres further back and possibly, another 23 acres. Mr. Broy said all this acreage will connect as part of a business complex. Mr. Broy said he would be willing to lease sign space for any of those businesses back there. Mr. Broy said he understood he could only advertise for the businesses in Commonwealth Business Park. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Morris commented he would feel differently about this request were it the businesses themselves who were seeking off -premise advertising. Since this was not the case, he was not in favor of the CUP. Commissioner Morris then moved to recommend denial of the CUP. The motion failed, however, due to the lack of a second to the motion. A new motion was made by Commissioner Light to recommend approval of the CUP with the conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Frederick County Planning Commissionj1 M Page 1792 Minutes of June 21, 2006 ©(� ju{ F T -12 - BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit # 10-05 of William Broy for an off -premise business sign at 3605 Valley Pike with the following conditions: The sign shall be a monument -style sign, 50 square -feet in area and no more than ten feet in height. 2. This is classified as a development entrance sign and is to provide advertisements strictly for businesses along Commonwealth Court. The sign is not to display any material that would constitute it as being classified as a directional sign (i.e. messages concerning the distance or direction to particular locations). 4_ The sign will consist of a brick base and shall be properly maintained. 5. ' All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn NO: Moms ABSTAIN: Manuel (Note: Commissioner Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #06-06 for White Hall Business Park, submitted by Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc. for a Caterpillar maintenance and sales facility. The properties are located approximately 950 feet west from Interchange 323 off I-81, approximately 2,560 feet south of Rest Church Road, along Zachary Ann Lane. The parcels are further identified with P.I.N.s 33-9-6,33-9-7,33-9-8 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the preliminary master development plan for the Whitehall Business Park is a proposal to develop approximately 20 acres of M 1(L.ight Industrial) zoned property to accommodate a facility known as Alban Tractor. Ms. Perkins said the proffers for the site state the applicant will construct Zachary Ann Lane to Lot 6 in accordance with the previously -approved road plan; the applicant will create a lane -striping plan for Rest Church Road in conjunction with VDOT to help improve traffic conditions; the applicant will continue a 50 -foot woodlands buffer along the southern property line; and the applicant will provide a woodlands strip along Lot 8 and I-81, varying between five and 20 feet, to help screen the property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Page 1793 -13 - Ms. Perkins said the master development plan (MDP) is consistent with the requirements ofthe zoning ordinance and has addressed all of the staff's concerns. Commissioner Morris was interested in knowing how long the tree -save area would remain in place and if it could be removed if Lot 8 would be developed at some future time. Ms. Perkins replied that the proffers for the rezoning pertain to the entire site, and dictate that this 50 -foot strip can not be touched unless the applicant revises the proffers. She said if they wanted to take out the trees, the applicant would have to come back and revise the MDP. Mr. David Lellock with Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc. was representing the owner and applicant, JCA W White Hall, LLC. Mr. Lellock said the project has remained the same since it was presented for rezoning in October of 2005. There were no public comments regarding the proposed MDP. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #06-06 for White Hall Business Park, submitted by Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc., for a Caterpillar maintenance and sales facility. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated the Bylaws Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has reviewed and made several recommendations to modify the Commission's Bylaws and to establish the Rules and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawrence said the Rules and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission is a guideline to help Commission members understand the expectations as they fulfill their roles on the Planning Commission. He said this document is not a part of the Bylaws, but is a free-standing document. Mr. Lawrence then proceeded to give the Commission a brief summary of the document, which basically dealt with application communications between members of the Commission and between the Planning Staff and the Commission. He said there was a Commissioner's development section involving continuing education, leadership development, etc. Mr. Lawrence said some of the Bylaw changes refer to new member education which would involve a meeting with the staff to explain how the Commission operates, what the Comprehensive Policy Plan and other documents are, and other issues involving the role of individual members. Commission members had questions for the staff on various sections of the Rules and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission and the Bylaws. Mr. Lawrence said he would bring the documents back to the Commission on the next available schedule for the Planning Commission to officially vote. Frederick County Planning Commissionj'1 j'j::�� 1 N V Page 1794 Minutes of June 21, 2006 i �' � j� -1 -4 - ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2006 Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary V 7 Page 1795 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 5, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At - Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 06/29/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRS had three items on their agenda: First, the DRRS discussed the length of roads going into subdivisions in the RA areas; he said there have been complaints the roads are too short and can't be made to work. He said the second item discussed was setbacks in the RA District and third, the subcommittee discussed signage in multi -tenant complexes. He said there have been a considerable number of problems with signs in Frederick County. Transportation Committee — 06/26/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed a possible alternative to Route 37 around the Stonewall Industrial Park; they discussed impact fees in the Rural Areas; and they discussed the Six -Year Road Plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1796 Minutes of July 5, 2006 0 0 & F 7 -2 - CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item not on this evening's agenda and the following person came forward to speak. Mr. Charles Harbaugh and Mr. Charles Wine stepped forward to speak with the Commission about a trucking operation across the street from their homes on South Hayfield Road. Mr. Harbaugh told the Commission that nothing has been done about the trucking operation since the last time he spoke with the Commission on June 21, 2005. Mr. Harbaugh added that the Zoning Administrator is allowing one truck; however, he did not believe even one truck was permitted under the Code. Mr. Charles Wine said three trucks have been parked across the street for a long time; he said two of the trucks are parked there most of the time. Mr. Wine said it won't be long before he is pulling in reefers and they run two, three, and four days at a time. He added that the noise is irritating. PUBLIC HEARING An amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-64, Recreational Facilities. This amendment would enable a waiver of required community centers in single-family, small -lot subdivisions. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, stated that this proposed change would allow a waiver opportunity for the community center requirement in all single-family, small -lot subdivisions with less than 50 lots, provided an equivalent of three age-appropriate recreational units for each 30 dwellingunits can be demonstrated. He said this amendment was presented to the Board of Supervisors as a discussion item at their May 10, 2006 and the Board forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Commissioner Morris inquired what type of equivalent age-appropriate recreational unit the staff would envision for these subdivisions. Mr. Cheran said the possibilities could include a picnic shelter, walking trails, or even cash for off-site use. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward to address the Commission, as he had made the initial request for this amendment. Mr. Wyatt said the reason for proposing this comes down to an issue of yield, i.e. how many dwelling units can sustain a community center building. He said the amendment provides the County with the opportunity to have a developer come forward with a proposal as a substitute to the community center building. He said that if the proposal is not satisfactory to the Board, the waiver can be denied; however, it does allow for more innovative recreational amenities, particularly for smaller lots. In response to Commissioner Morris' comment, Mr. Wyatt said there could be a substitute recreational package which could include things that were age-appropriate and more likely to be used by the residents. He added that the value could meet or exceed that of a community building or it could be that value plus cash for off-site. Mr. Wyatt said that in the past, they have solicited input from the Director of Parks and Recreation as to the types of amenities they thought were appropriate and the values they thought were appropriate. Frederick County Planning Commission N �j Page 1797 U U Minutes of July 5, 2006 @ V I � -3 - Commissioner Moms said he was still unclear about how the values are placed on the equivalent recreational units. Mr. Wyatt replied that recreational values are determined by the Department of Parks and Recreation. He said the current value is $25,000 per recreational unit; therefore, for a single-family small -lot project, a community center is equal to three values of a recreational unit, or $75,000 for each 30 dwelling units. Mr. Wyatt explained this was how the value was initiated and then the Parks and Recreation Department will assist in working out the best recreational package. He added that the value must either meet or exceed. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-64, Recreational Facilities. This amendment would enable a waiver of required community centers in single-family, small -lot subdivisions. YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Moms, Thomas, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn NO: Oates, Triplett, Wilmot (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan 904-06 for Brookland Manor, submitted by Dewberry, to enable the development of a 68 -unit, single-family attached (townhouse) residential project on 8.83 acres. The properties are located on Brookland Lane (Rt. 658),1,700 feet south of the intersection of Brookland Lane and Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 542-5 and 54-2-6 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Commissioner Manuel said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this master development plan, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Bernard S. Suchicital reported that the proposed density of the project is 7.69 dwelling units per acre and will include two tot lots, an eight -foot wide paved trail, and a separate 1'/4 -acre out -lot for the historic Brookland House. Mr. Suchicital said the development will be accessed by Brookland Lane and will have a projected impact of 588 additional vehicle trips per day. He added that the applicant has agreed to address the issue regarding the sidewalk along Brookland Lane. Mr. David Frank with Dewberry came forward to represent the owner of the property, Mr. Dave Holiday. Mr. Frank said there were some physical constraints on Brookland Lane with steep slopes coming down into the property and the adjacent Windstone property. He said it will be difficult to construct sidewalks on both sides of Brookland Lane. Mr. Frank said VDOT has acquiesced to not needing sidewalks on both sides and the applicant plans to make some off-site improvements to match the sidewalk funds that would have been required Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 5, 2006 Page 1798 on Brookland Lane. Referring to the comments from Public Works regarding the wetlands delineation, Commissioner Oates asked if the study had been completed. Mr. Frank said the study has been completed and the consultant has stated that all the wetlands were contained within the stream bank and stream bed. Mr. Frank said no wetlands will be disturbed. Commissioner Mohn asked the staff if the arrangement worked out with the sidewalk issue is satisfactory to the staff Mr. Suchicital replied that staff had the understanding that the applicant would build the sidewalk according to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 144-18A, which calls for all streets to have sidewalks onboth sides of the road on collector, arterial, and local streets. Mr. Suchicital said that if the applicant chooses to have sidewalks on only one side of Brookland Lane, it will be against the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Mohn inquired if there was a provision for a waiver and staff replied no. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commission members discussed the sidewalk issue as it was a requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Mohn said there was clearly a problem, if there is an ordinance requirement and it is not being provided by the applicant. He said the applicant certainly must satisfy VDOT's requirements, but they also must satisfy the County's ordinances. He added that if there is not a provision for a waiver or some other alternative, then the applicant must agree to install the sidewalk as required by the Code. Mr. Frank returned -to the podium and stated that it was clearly the intention of this plan to deal with the topographic constraints. He said if the Subdivision Ordinance does not allow for this kind of waiver or this type of topographic consideration, then they will be required to put sidewalks on both sides within the right- of-way provided. Mr. Frank said the applicant would be willing to do this. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #04-06 for Brookland Manor, submitted by Dewberry, to enable the development of a 68 -unit, single-family attached (townhouse) residential project with the stipulation that sidewalks are provided along both sides of Brookland Lane. (Note: Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Consideration of a request by Todd Shenk for a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, for an exception to Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3), minor rural subdivisions, to enable a family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. The properties are located on Sherwood Pines Lane and are identified with P.I.N.s 6-8-2-1 and 6- 8-2-3 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Frederick County Planning Conunission� N I ��rage I X77 Minutes of July 5, 2006 i i�J IJ -5 - Commissioner Oates stated he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this waiver request due to a possible conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator,. Mark R Cheran, reported the applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 144-32(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance to enable a family subdivision of land on a right-of- way less than 50 feet. Mr. Cheran said the applicant, Mr. Todd Shenk, has stated that an existing 20 -foot right- of-way provides access to the properties where the proposed family lots will be located. Mr. Cheran also stated the waiver would enable the creation of two family lots as deeded to Mr. Shenk's wife and daughter. He added that the agenda packet includes letters from adjoining property owners; two letters are in support of the applicant and one is in support of the subdivision of land, but not the right-of-way. Mr. Todd Shenk, the applicant, stated that he has the necessary acreage to do a family division. He explained that the spouse option will give him the opportunity of giving the land to any one of his four children, should it be necessary for them- to build; therefore, it does not have to be in one of their names in particular. In addition, Mr. Shenk said he planned on continuing to farm his property; he is not planning on selling the property. Mr. Shenk said the only reason he needs to get Board approval is because of the existing 300 -feet of 20 -foot right-of-way, Sherwood Pines Lane, which is between his 50 -foot right-of-way and Middle Fork Road, State Route 695. Mr. Shenk explained that his neighbor's right-of-way, Sherwood Pines Lane, is only 20 -feet wide and has orchard trees on both sides. Mr. Shenk said his neighbor has no problem with some future use of the right-of-way by two more houses; his only concern is that if he deeded Mr. Shenk the 50 -foot right-of- way, which would have nullified the affect of coming before the Commission and Board, then he may have someone who would want to push his orchard trees out. Mr. Shenk added that the acreage and density of the property will only allow two divisions. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of a request by Todd Shenk for a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, for an exception to Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3), minor rural subdivisions, to enable a family division of a parcel of land on a right-of-way less than 50 feet. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained; Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) OTHER COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENTS MEETING Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, announced. the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 10, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room. He said that Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments are to be considered. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 11300 Minutes of July 5, 2006 IM. SEWER & WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA) AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) BOUNDARIES MODIFICATIONS Commissioner Oates said he would like to make a motion, based on the Commission's previous meeting of the consideration of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA) boundaries amendment.. Commissioner Oates said he felt several of the areas under consideration could have been moved forward and tabling the entire package until the UDA Study was completed, or finther along, would unnecessarily prolong the entire package. Commissioner Oates made a motion to have the SWSA and UDA boundaries amendment areas brought back before the Commission with each area voted on individually and for the Commission to table only the appropriate ones. A discussion ensued about the appropriateness of bringing this item back before the Commission when a vote had already been taken. Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence recalled the Board of Supervisors doing something similar in the past; he said this is the fust meeting since that previous motion occurred and if a Commission member who voted to support the previous motion wishes to call the question again, they could raise the issue and bring it back. Commissioner Morris seconded Commissioner Oates' motion, because there were areas that were not under dispute. He said he didn't see any reason to hold up the ones which had no questions or conflicts with the CPPA. Commissioner Mohn said he could go along with bringing this item back; however, he wanted to be sure that all of the individual property owners within each area are specifically notified that they are going to be considered again. Other Commissioners agreed the public should be notified and it should be a public meeting. Some of the Commission members were not in favor of bringing the package back again on the three or four areas that did not have public comments; these members did not believe it was fair to the public, especially if everyone was not notified in the same manner they were previously notified. One Commissioner made the point that if the Commission does not plan to bring this up for reconsideration until after the CPPA review, which has been scheduled for July 10, 2006, then it should be so stated in the motion. He said the issue raised at the previous meeting was the potential conflict between the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments hearing and the Commission's discussion of changing the SWSA and UDA boundaries before the hearing. Commissioner Oates then restated his motion for the consideration of the SWSA and UDA Boundaries Amendments to be brought back to the Commission's next available meeting after the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments Hearing scheduled for July 10, 2006, allowing enough time for staff to appropriately notify the property owners, and for each area to be considered individually as a public meeting item. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Moms. - A member of the Commission asked the Commission's legal counsel for an opinion on whether or not the Planning Commission could reconsider the boundary amendments without notifying the property owners. Mr. Lawrence R Ambrogi, the Commission's legal counsel, said he had some concerns. Mr. Ambrogi asked the Commission to do a_brief summary. of what was done and the Commission's intentions; he said there may be some case law that could apply to this. Commissioner Oates amended his restated motion by adding that stair will consult legal courLSe1 to make sure all property owners are legally notified, through letters, public airways, or newspapers. Commissioner Morris concurred with the amended and restated motion. Frederick County Planning CommissionD (, � F� Y rage i av i Minutes of July 5, 2006 ^[{j -7 - Commissioner Mohn had a couple points to make regarding the notification and reconsideration. He said if this comes back for reconsideration in a month's time, he would like to see some analysis and not just an identification of where the areas were that were being considered to be taken out. He suggested some history of the particular area regarding relationships of recent applications to current applications, regardless of what the CPPA process yields in the next couple weeks. Secondly, he thought the public notification needed to go a step further than simply stating that you are in an area that is being considered for a contraction. He recognized it was more work, but thought it was worthwhile to make sure the public totally understands what is happening. He said that more information was better in this case and it was better to err on the side of caution. The vote was as follows: YES (TO RECONSIDER): Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Oates, Morris, Watt, Unger, Wilmot NO: Thomas, Manuel (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the. meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 5, 2006 monA V Page 1802 • C� • CO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #03-06 b REBECCA AND EDWARD ARNETTE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 14, 2006 Staff Contact: Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/02/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/23/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 819 Redbud Road (Route 661). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-2 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT' USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Agricultural Land Use: Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Landscaping Contractor Business REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. 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 provide access to the property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. 11owever, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. CUP #03-06, Rebecca and Edward Arnette July 14, 2006 Page 2 Inspections Department: No permits required provided exemption under Section 102.3 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code is met. Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area. Winchester -Frederick County Health Department: The applicant has advised this office that the County (John Riley) has stated approval for a pump and haul system will be granted for this property. Based on that information, the Health Dept. has no objection as long as the County supplies written approval specifying the pump and haul is acceptable for this property and the proposed use. Winchester Regional Airport: Since the CUP does not appear to have any impact on the operations of the Winchester Regional Airport, there are no objections or special conditions requested. Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for a landscape contracting business. This proposed use will take place on a two (2) acre tract of land located in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for landscape contracting in the RA Zoning District with an approved CUP. Staff would note that there is currently one dwelling on the property, which has been abandoned, and one shed. The current shed on the property is going to be used for storage. Due to the layout of the parcel, Staff would recommend an opaque fence of six (6) feet in height to screen the entire property. Since this proposed use is commercial in nature, staff would recommend that a 50' buffer be placed along Redbud Road and the adjoining residential lot. This buffer is the same as a zoning district buffer, in that its purpose is to distinctly shield different land uses. The 50' buffer will be 25' active/inactive, also known in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as a Category B landscape buffer. The active buffer will be required to contain a landscaping variety that includes a majority of evergreen, and contains three trees per ten linear feet, which will be located outside the fence. The applicant has proposed no more than eight (8) employees at any one time, and the site will not contain more than seven (7) vehicles stored on the premises. No sales of nursery stock will take place on site. This landscaping business will not be open to the public. The Health Department has indicated the only type of health system available for this tract of land would be a pump and haul. Upon approval of this CUP, the pump and haul system will need to be applied for and approved. Staff would like to note that this CUP has been applied for in response to a zoning violation. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies that storage of heavy equipment is not a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Also, any storage trailer(s) must be removed from the property. Staff strongly recommends that vehicular storage and storage of heavy equipment is CUP #03-06, Rebecca and Edward Arnette July 14, 2006 Page 3 minimal. This property is currently still in violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 165-50 (storage of heavy equipment) and 165-26E (trailer not permitted as accessory use). Attached are images of existing site conditions. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/02/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than eight (8) employees allowed on site. 3. Three (3) employee and four (4) business vehicle parking spaces are the maximum parking allowance. 4. An engineered site plan shall be approved and implemented prior to business activity on the site. 5. Any expansion or change of use, including any increase in number of employees or equipment, will require a new Conditional Use Permit with an engineered site plan. 6. No sale of nursery stock will be allowed on site. 7. A 50' landscaped buffer, with full landscape screen (Category B), will be placed along Redbud Road and completely along the adjoining residential lot. 8. A six foot tall board -on -board fence will screen all storage areas on the property. 9. Business activities conducted on the property shall only take place during daylight hours. 10. The storage and driving areas shall have a gravel surface. 11. A health system approved by the County and State shall be in place prior to the commencement of business activities. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. .+b 55 A 4 HUNTSBERRY, CHARLES WILLIAM Rt37 Bypass oAV 350ft Buffer O0UP0306_Rebecca_EdwardAmette 44 A 28 I; DONNA W & DONALD M 55 A 5C HERRING, STACY 44 A 28E O'DONNELL, RAYMOND V & BETTY R 55 A ;Y„CHARLES WILLIAM 44 A 28A JOBE, ALLEN B. & VELDA D. 4A A 28F KUGLER, STANDISH P & JANET E 1# 44 A 281 MILLER, VOIGHT G & BONNIE L 4* 55 A 5 HERRING, KEVIN L Rebecca & Edward Arnette CUP #03-06 (55-A-2) Frederick County Dept of Planning 8 Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22501 w .CO.FREDERICK.VA.US ty '44 A 28E JOU. ALLEN S. B.VELDA D: >, O'DONNEL'L, RAYMONO•V &BETTY R ty 28 v"JERb B NA W'8 DONALD M . • f , A 28F ' KUGLER, STANDISH P 8 JANET E �a� qua.. �� r ,�''_ti • � ,+ ' + U 4 M A 281 ?T- r �P,7lLLLR, VOIGHT G & 2CNNIE L am; �x���t .y Y �1" ,• z �S 'F U ERRY GHAR'E$ Wi LU1M r L 'r -y n. y*rte � i - - t _� it , r � -•+� �-. ••rig.' '7 r-. x G rj n 1L 55 A 4 55 A 5C HATSBERRY, CHARLES WILLIAM HERRING, BTAC'I m u ?- h 6,r SS A 5 HERRING, KEVIN L. do Rt37 Bypass Rebecca & Edward Arnette Plannick D val Deem Planning 6 Development N 350ft Buffer CUP # 03 - 06 w E 07 N Kent St CUP Rebecca_EdwartlAmette s Winchester. VA 22601 w .CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting _ BOS Meeting (� APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the l/ owner other) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of &5 feet and a depth of 3'ot 5- feet and consists of a acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by ;�� ie'`„ �a as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no._ on page /;5 0 , as the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Frederick. 6. 14-Diit Pro erty Identification No. _'5 - Magisterial District Current Zoning PA 7. Adjoining Property: ZONING ei 1RAPIA recorded in County of 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before / completing) 9. It is proposed that the following,buildings will be constructed: baM 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 C h IK1 If S 4il n+3 b ern, ADDRESS ;pn p`ri to r U I r i Lr. "�`w_Y" v It L�-i.VL� PROPERTY ID# 5 -A-3 USE .- North re -5 tLttA,,�h a l East r 4-yLL P South rm r West rnn f!KJ-e ZONING ei 1RAPIA recorded in County of 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before / completing) 9. It is proposed that the following,buildings will be constructed: baM 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 C h IK1 If S 4il n+3 b ern, ADDRESS ;pn p`ri to r U I r i Lr. "�`w_Y" v It L�-i.VL� PROPERTY ID# 5 -A-3 NAME j a (Yl,2S C(,{ ( p ADDRESS %°!S I&dbu d ed coin r f /} PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS ID# 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show s proposed and/or existing structures on the property, "` s _ including measurements to all property lines. t 1 I ' I I 1 M.� y ri ' 4 � _cao9 CA/ , 12. Additional comments, if ny: V�-q P Je 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. Signture of App scant, .5 warm Sig a ure of Ow r Owners' Mailing Address 8 Q «a U j 15705Y, ►�� a �C? Owners' Telephone No. ,qq0- -73d - RT2 5 ' 5 35- (01 sol od te, TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: • C� i MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #07-06 ORRICK COMMONS Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 18, 2006 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/02/06 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/23/06 Pending LOCATION: The property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (Route 656) with road frontage along both roadways. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-201 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (General Business) Districts Use: Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) South: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) East: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) West: RP (Residential Performance) B2 (Business General) Use: Residential and vacant Fire station and church Use: Residential Country store and residential Use: Residential Residential Use: Residential Retail PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use — Commercial and Age Restricted Residential MDP #07-06, Orrick Commons July 18, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virl4inia Department of Transportation: The preliminary master plan for this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 656 and 657, the VDOT facilities which would provide access to the property. Your Master Development Plan submitted 5/23/06 is acceptable. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Maintain emergency access during all phases of construction. Water supply for firefighting shall meet requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4, and be available prior to construction material arriving on site. Plan approval recommended. Frederick County Public Works: We have completed our review of the revised MDP for Orrick Commons on June 26, 2006. Based on this review, we conclude that the .revised MDP has adequately addressed our rezoning comments. Furthermore, the MDP appears to adequately address the environmental issues related to the proposed development. Consequently, we grant our approval of the proposed MDP assuming that the detailed design of stormwater management facilities will be carefully evaluated during the development of the individual site plans and residential subdivision plans. In particular, we recommend that offsite drainage easements and adequate conveyance channels be carefully analyzed. Also, the MDP does not clearly indicate if the existing pond located within the proposed open space will be used for stormwater management purposes. Additional stormwater management facilities may be required to accommodate the proposed development. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 2nd review — Approved as noted 1 item Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition permit shall be required prior to removing any existing structures. No additional comments required at this time. Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: Health Dept. has no objection as long as public water and sewer are provided. GIS Department: Orrick Drive has been approved and added into the Frederick County Road Naming and Structure numbering system. Buckner Terrace is denied because it conflicts with City of Winchester Street road name and Brooks Drive is denied because it conflicts with County of Frederick road name. Winchester Relzional Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impact operations at MDP #07-06, Orrick Commons July 18, 2006 Page 3 the Winchester Regional Airport. However, due to the proximity of this site to the Airport, residents should be forewarned about the possibility of over flight noise from aircraft arriving and departing the airport from the north/northeast. Department of Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space and recreational unit requirements. Final plan for required recreational units needs to be approved by Parks and Recreation staff. Trail detail needs to be more explicit. Monetary proffer appears to be consistent with the county model for this housing type. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 175 single-family and multi -family units will have no impact on the school division upon build -out due to the units being age restricted. Planning & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road (Route 657) and Greenwood Road (Route 656) with road frontage along both roadways. C) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies this property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. On June 28, 2006, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #4-06, which rezoned 33.61 acres of the 55.6 acre site from the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district to the RP (Residential Performance) District and 22.06 acres to the B2 (Business General) District, with proffers. D) Intended Use Mixed Use — Commercial and Age Restricted Residential E) Site Suitability & Project Scope MDP #07-06, Orrick Commons July 18, 2006 Page 4 Comprehensive Policy Plan: The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use Compatibility: The site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is not within the limits of any small area plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the entire Senseny Road corridor for residential uses. However, the Plan (6-72) does call for neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. As demonstrated with the approval of the Orrick rezoning request, development of the western portion of the property for neighborhood commercial development and the eastern portion for residential, if done in a compatible manner, could be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Environment: No steep slopes exist on the property and no portion of this site is located within the 100 - year flood plain. This site does contain areas of mature woodlands, which are located on the eastern portion of the site, which are being preserved as indicated on the MDP. U.S.G.S. maps show one stream and one pond on the property, both in the northeast corner. The applicant prepared a Wetland Delineation Report and a Request for Jurisdictional Wetlands Determination as part of the rezoning. That report documented two wetlands in the southeast corner of the site and one circular ditch holding water that is not a jurisdictional water of the U.S. Transportation: The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Senseny Road and Greenwood Road as improved major collectors. This translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section, such as is being implemented with Warrior Drive. The idealized intersection design in the Comprehensive Plan (6-15) illustrates appropriate features including raised medians with landscaping, landscaping along the edge of the right-of- way, and sidewalks. With the Orrick rezoning, the applicant proffered a number of road improvements and right-of-way dedications along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, which implements the Eastern Road Plan. The applicant also proffered street trees along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road and a median on Senseny Road. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Senseny Road as a short-term designated route. With the Orrick Rezoning, the applicant proffered to build a 10' asphalt bike path along their frontages of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. MDP 407-06, Orrick Commons July 18, 2006 Page 5 Proffers: The following list is a summary of the proffered conditions associated with Rezoning #04-06 (Dated December 6, 2005 and Revised June 2, 2006): Land Use • Commercial development on the property shall not exceed 158,000 square feet. • Residential development shall be provided as a mixture of single family and multi -family units. • Prior to occupancy of any residential dwelling, the applicant shall fully construct a minimum of 55,000 square feet of commercial building space. • Adult retail uses are prohibited and car washes are prohibited adjacent to residential properties Environment • The applicant shall preserve a minimum of 8,000 square feet as a tree save area. Transportation • The applicant will install a traffic signal at the project entrance on Senseny Road. In addition to signalization improvements, the applicant shall construct a left turn lane at said intersection for the eastbound lane of Senseny Road as well as a right turn lane for the westbound lane of Senseny Road. • Farmington Boulevard is being extended through the property. • The applicant will construct a right turn lane for the westbound lane of Senseny Road at the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. A right turn lane for the northbound lane of Greenwood Road is also being provided. • A dedication of 10' of right-of-way along Senseny Road and 15' along Greenwood Road is being provided. • An interconnected transportation network through the residential and commercial areas will be provided; this network will include a connected sidewalks. • The applicant will install signalization at the entrance on Greenwood Road when requested by VDOT. • Access along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will be limited to one entrance on each. • Site access on Senseny Road shall be constructed utilizing a boulevard design that incorporates a landscaped median with street trees. • The applicant will work with County staff and VDOT at the time of site plan review to install a median on Senseny Road if deemed appropriate. Desi -n Standards • The principal facade and any other facade facing Senseny Road or Greenwood Road of any commercial building will be limited to a cast stone, stone, brick, glass, wood stucco or other masonry. All commercial buildings will have standing seam metal roofs. • The multi -family units will have facades of brick, stone, simulated stone, wood, Hardishingle and/or I4arditrim, or materials of comparable quality, Azek Trimboards, Fypon brackets and/or cornice details, stucco and glass. The apartment structures will incorporate non -symmetrical massing, bays and columned porches. MDP #07-06, Orrick Commons July 18, 2006 Page 6 Parks and Recreation The applicant will design and construct a 3.5 acre park. If in the future both the county and applicant find it to be in the best interest of the county, this park may be dedicated to the county for use by the general public. (Staff Note: The proffer statement gives the opportunity for the 3.5 acre park to be dedicated to the County. A decision by the County on this park has not been made.) • The applicant will construct a ten foot asphalt pedestrian bike trail along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, prior to occupancy of any commercial building. Signage • Freestanding signs at the two commercial entrances will be limited to a single monument style sign. Each sign shall be limited to 20 feet in height. • Pylon signs will be prohibited on the site. Monetary Contribution • For each residential unit the applicant has proffered: $248 for parks and recreation; $166 for fire and rescue; $37 for general government; $76 for public safety; and $31 for library; $558 for capital improvements, plus • $2,854 for road improvements to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Corridor Enhancements • Street trees shall be provided along the road frontage of both Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Interior Landsca in • A minimum of 6% landscaping of the interior portions of the commercial parking lots will be provided. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/02/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan for Orrick Commons depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning and has addressed all of staffs concerns. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. s ��:� � j � �* '� r ' ' � :1 � , �' r; f,I: . CA LLC 55 2 1 00/' 55 A 186 O Q O� 0 0 0 �9eP 55 A 185 CAMPFIELD, LLC SSsq O d r _fit .vORV a,,,,,,,' •. �t LUSV Wr7 AWNii•*f• • �Y •' Oo Q LYNNEHAVEN, LC O C, O o 55 A 206 Q © O O O [ O RPO O - . 55 A 201 0~¢ O C 000 0 0 O O 00 ' II g 0 Q O 00 00 O _ O p - +n ,y^ O O O 65 A 39 O on 0 01 O- O 0 ° Q a O 1 O 0 ° O ca '� `►', 551( 11 24A O O aO O Q 0. O O OOO wo00 00 6yP Pry ry �O O Q 0 64 A 12fl 0 q O o O O O O O Q 0 eeny� Ove, O S•?3: o QO Q Q N4f AN v�l'_L14 H . Q RMBRc1$E,S0.NDEk0.NNEC0.RPER '° Q 4] o 65A� A 2 O to ns��y,,gd (SSA A 3 ° 0 O 65A 6 Z 18 O �'�m \M�t CT Q O 6 O O QIO O ° 65A 62 20 O ®° sq O 7�e ANDENsok FAN0.1, Llc .. O Q O O O O o v v O Q 00 Appiication �� Bridges Culverts O Parcels Lakes/Ponds ^/ Dams Agucultural8 Fur t,u Dhsticts +' Streams V Retaining Walls Double Church MDP # 0 7 06 Buildings Road Centerlines Red 8;.* Tanks *T �jSouthFredlln,k Orrick Commons NTrails Zoning M2(Ilal,GeneralDistrict) (55 A 201 ) P'. R1 (Business, NeigM1fiarM1ood District) + (Mobi MHt (Mobile Home Community Dislricl) �' 82 (Business, General District) lift MS (Medical Support nistriq) •, —83 (Business, IndusViai Transition District); R4(Resitlential,Planned Community District) N EM (Extractive Manufacturing Districp AW R5 (Residential Recreational CommunAy District) 0 0.075 i RE( Higher Etlucation Dislricl) 0.15 03 W RA (Rural Areas District) M1 (1—d bias, Light D'slricl) RP (Residential Pedormance nisirici) — ® S Miles O O ,So,P Q ;' O O F� q O .0 u =102 F AV06 min 41 .0 u =102 F AV06 min Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION J J L 1 0 2006 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only Date application received —7--a Complete - Date of acceptance Incomplete - Date of Return 1. Project Title: Orrick Commons 2. Owner's Name: Orrick Cemetery, Inc 501 S. Braddock Street 3. Application # Winchester, VA 22601 (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) Paramount Development Applicant: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address: 117 E. Piccadilly St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667-2139 4. Design Company: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540)667-2139 Contact Name: Patrick Sowers Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: Property is located in the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road with frontage on both roadways. 6. Total Acreage: 55.6708 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 55-A-201 b) Current Zoning: RP/132 c) Present Use: Vacant d) Proposed Use: Commercial Age restricted residential e) Adjoining Property Information: SEE ATTACHED Property Identification Property Uses North South East West f) Magisterial District: Red Bud 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original X Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: 2 Adjoining Property Owners Master Development Plan Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Greenwood Vol. Fire Company 809 Greenwood Rd Property #: 55-A-199 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Greenwood Baptist Church 781 Greenwood Rd Property #: 55-A-192 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Bettie E. Winslow 711 Greenwood Rd Property #: 55-A-184 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Briarwood, LC 205 N. Cameron St Property#: 55-A-200 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Chris S. and Carla A. Hammond 210 Trefoil Ct Property #: 55J-1-6-118 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: David R. and Kay E. Jarl 212 Trefoil Ct Property #: 55J-1-6-119 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Briarwood Estates HOA Property #: 55J -1-9-193A Name: Stephen P. and Angela C. Pforr 120 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-194 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: John B. and Elizabeth C. Tullis 122 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-195 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Alberto C. Otoya 124 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-196 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: John Shields 126 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-197 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Michael J. Rudolph 128 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-198 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Mark and Malinda A. Dowsett 130 Teaberry Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-199 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Ronald C. and Elizabeth A. Dishong 215 Ladyslipper Dr Property #: 55J-1-9-204 Winchester, VA 22602 4 Name: Charles R. Campbell 401 Farmington Blvd Property #: 55K-1-2-25 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Gene and Laurie L. Orr 400 Farmington Blvd Property #: 55K-1-1-24 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: James E. and Karen S. Neaverth 118 Sesar Ct Property #: 55K-1-1-14 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Therese M. and Christopher E. Collins 120 Sesar Ct Property #: 55K-1-1-13 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Paula K. McDonald 121 Sesar Ct Property #: 55K-1-1-12 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Lynnehaven HOA Property #: 55K -1-1-24A Name: Russell W. and Velma Moreland 2105 Senseny Rd Property #: 65-A-23 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: George T. Damko 2097 Senseny Rd Property#: 65-A-22 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Rocky J. Rhodes et als 2085 Senseny Rd Property #: 65-A-21 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Charles D. Lloyd 2045 Senseny Rd Property #: 55-A-203 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Charles D. Lloyd 2045 Senseny Rd Property #: 55-A-202 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Shane P. Taylor 2037 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-8 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Henry J. Agregarrd III 2031 Senseny Rd Property#: 65A-1-7 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Skip and Vickie A. Baker 2025 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-6 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Ernest H. and Lena Lawrence 2019 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-5 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Melvin G. Saville Jr. 2015 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Genoa T. Kees 2009 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Valley, LLC 2003 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Edward G. and Mary L. Sinkoski 1997 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-1-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Myra C. Hughes 1986 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-8 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Gregory S. and Janet M. Puffinburger 1978 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-7 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Michael C. Dorgan 1968 Senseny Rd Property $: 65A-2-1-� Winchester; VA 22602 Name: Donald E. Strauss 1958 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-5 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Franklin B. Anderson 1948 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Kenneth L. and Shirley A. Mason 1930 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Kenneth L. and Shirley A. Mason 1930 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Cora V. Clark 1932 Senseny Rd Property #: 65A-2-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Cora V. Clark 1932 Senseny Rd Property#: 55-A-196 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Timothy and Mary Stafford 1905 Senseny Rd Property#: 55-A-197 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Green Sen, LLC 1893 Senseny Rd Property #: 55-A-198 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: TCG Management, LLC 847 Lake St Clair Property #: 55-A-194 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Country Park Homeowners Association RR 5 Box 525 Property #: 55D -1-34A Winchester, VA 22603 cK Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Orrick Cemetery, Inc (Phone) 540 722-4463 (Address) 501 S Braddock St Winchester VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book 337 Page Number 179 and is described as Parcels: 201 Lot: Block: A Section/Tax Map 55 Subdivision: N/A do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, ve (Phone) 667-2139 address) 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my trite and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A — This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this ii day of , 2006; 1 Signature(s)� State of Virginia, City/County of l To -wit: 1,_� 4_ a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared ;b; o e me and has ac wledged e same b foreI1]/a� in the j `sdiction aforesaid this _day of. 2006. My Commission Expires: ,Totary Public • C� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Amending the Planning Commission's Bylaws Creation of Roles and Responsibilities DATE: July 14, 2006 Earlier this year, a Bylaws Committee was established and tasked with reviewing the Planning Commission's Bylaws. This committee considered the existing bylaws and other areas in which the operations of the Planning Commission may be enhanced. The Committee's discussion resulted in two proposed documents: a revised Bylaw, and a new Role and Responsibilities document. These proposed documents were presented for an initial review by the Planning Commission during their June 21, 2006 public meeting. As the Planning Commission's Bylaws state that the "bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice" (Bylaws, Section 9-1), no action was taken during the June 21, 2006 meeting. This item has been scheduled for a second Planning Commission review on August 2, 2006. It is appropriate to consider action on these proposed changes during the August 2, 2006 meeting. Attachments ERL/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 DRAFT .................. DRAFT ....... 07/14/06 ............. DRAFT ............ DRAFT Changes identified: New text 7 . tet.+ PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Revisions discussed by Bylaws Committee 04/24106 (rev. 07114106) ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." ARTICLE II - PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III -MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick Coun 3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall. 1) participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an - 1 - effort to review and better understand specific agenda items prior to attending their first two (2) Planning Commission meetings 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 at the first meeting of the calendar year. 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. 4-3-1-3 Report official communications. 4-3-1-4 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-5 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-6 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 - 2 - chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 Wien acting as Chair, the bice Chairman shall carryGaFpf out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded. 4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-4 Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-5 Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. ARTICLE V -COMMITTEES 5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. - 3 - 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 o one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually - 5 -6 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members of every committee. 5-7 The committees may establish ad-hoc zroups to assist in specific, care ull -de fined tasks or a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc zroup 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 - MEETINGS 6-1 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 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) ofthe Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTL 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. - 4 - 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business for a re ular meetin 8-1-1 Call to Order 8-I-2 Adoption of'the Azenda 8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes 8-1-4 Committee Reports 8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 8-1-6 Public Hearings 8-1-7 Public Meetings 8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion 8-1-9 Other 8-1-10 Adjournment 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may - 5 - be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representin,- the application's Mazisterial District. If either District representative is absent or declines 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 Rebuttal by Applicant 8-3-4-5 Discussion by Commission 8-3-4-6 Motion and Action by Commission 8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-8 Public Hearings 8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for wlvch 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 - 6 - cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-9 Tabling 8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items if any one of the following situations occurs: 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) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. G) 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. - 7 - 8-3-8-4 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to act on an agenda item that has been tabled one time when the agenda item has been readvertised for a subsequent Planning Commission agenda. 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. U:\Eric\Common\2006\Bylaws\BLworkingdoc.071406.doe - 8 - .... DRAFT......... 07/14/06........... DRAFT.... FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (rev. 7-14-06) 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 will result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff Application Briefing: Prior to a 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. The applicant may attend, but will not have an active role in the briefing. The briefing will follow the format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8-3-9 of the Commission's By -Laws. In no case will the scheduling of the staff briefing change the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning Commission before action is taken. 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 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 %.Ommissione�s t,ed to articinate in Rn% of the regularly scheduled IiVIIII111JJIVIIGIJ are Gn�c�.wv w p vh. - � meetings per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, other governmental or family reasons should attempt to notify the Commission Chairman and 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 staffs 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's 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. APPEARANCE BEFORE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.- Commissioners NTITIES: Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is an item before another public body 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. U:\Eric\Common\2006\Bylaws\RolesandRespons.5-16.doc