Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PC 04-04-01 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia APRIL 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) February 21, 2001 Minutes ............................................ (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #03-01 of Jeffrey E. Williams (tabled 2/21/01), submitted by G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.75 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R5 (Residential Recreational). This property is located 1.7 miles south of Double Tollgate on the west side of Route 340 and 522 South and identified with Property Identification Number 94-A-1 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (B) 5) Conditional Use Permit #02-01 of David and Lisa Moore (Seasonal Colors Landscape & Lawn Maintenance, Inc.) for a Landscape Contracting Business. This property is located at 120 Green Spring Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 22-7-1-4 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (Mr.Cheran).........................................................(C) DISCUSSION ITEM 6) Work Session 7) Discussion on the Planning Commission Bylaws (Mr. Wyatt).......................................................... (D) 8) Other C; • C MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on February 21, 2001. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chainnan/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chainnan/Opequon District; John R Marker, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George I Kriz, Gainesboro District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Sidney A. Reyes, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Vince DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Pro rams Subcommittee CPPS - 02/12/01 Mtg. . Mr. Light reported that the CPPS discussed the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary lines on the Shenandoah project and the Route 522 South area. They also discussed projects for the upcoming year. Economic Development Commission DC Mr. Thomas elaborated on the report he submitted at the Commission's March 7, 2001 rneeting,which was written by the EDC. Mr. Thomas said the report, dated January 19, 2001 and entitled, Important Points Regarding Economic Development in Frederick County, was written at his request and sent to the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Planning staff. Mr. Thomas explained that Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 628 -2 - the report contains a two-page summary with an additional 3040 pages of reference information of historical data for the Year 2000 and includes residential development, residential service demand costs, industrial development, where revenue streams for Frederick County come from, and impacts on those revenue streams. Mr. Thomas believed it was a good accumulation of information for future rezonings, as far as residential development, industrial development, tourism, etc. Sanitation Authority (SA) Mr. Miller said that funding is finally in place to take care of the Echo Village sewer problem and contracts have been leased. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) - 02/20/01 Mtg. Mr. Ours reported that the WPC granted a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Winchester SPCA, which will allow the SPCA to expand its operations on Featherbed Lane and to bring itself more into compliance with State regulations for isolation provisions for animals. Mr. Ours said that the WPC also approved a CUP for Slades Restaurant, formerly known as Pargos, for a nightclub; they tabled a rezoning request for a smarm parcel at the corner of Valley Avenue and Bellview for expansion as a car lot; and had a pre -application discussion ofthe Kernstown Battlefield Visitors Center. He stated that the visitors center itself will be on County property, but the ingress/egress is through City property. PUBLIC HEARINGS Rezoning #01-01 of Southern Hills (continued from January 3, 2001), submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105 -acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) to establish 250 single-family residential lots. This property is located south of Stephens City, east of Interstate 81; 0.8 miles south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) on the east side of Town Run Lane (Rt. 1012), and is identified with P.I.N. 85-A-138 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 30 Days Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, read a letter from the Zoning Administrator for the Town of Stephens City, who was forwarding several concerns raised by Town Council members and Planning Commission members regarding the impacts that additional traffic would have on the Town of Stephens City and the surrounc:,.6 area. Mr. Wyatt said that since the continuance from the January 3, 2001 meeting, new information has been provided by the applicant to the staff, which includes a revised review agency comment from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company, a revised proffer statement, and a memorandum Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 629 -3 - of responses to the nine issues that were identified during the previous staff report. Mr. Wyatt proceeded to review each issue and identified the staff comment associated with it. After his review, Mr. Wyatt recommended the Commission determine. if the revised information and proffer statement adequately mitigates the issues identified by the staff when forwarding a recommendation to the Board. At this point, members of the Commission had numerous questions for staff regarding the status of the Rt. 277 restructuring by VDOT, whether changes to Aylor Road would be made prior to the Rt. 277 upgrades, the Level of Service (LOS) at Stickley and Rt. 277, the status of a traffic signal at Rt. 277 and Stickley Drive, and VDOT's comments about the inadequacy of the structural section at Town Run. Mr. Charles W. Maddox with Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for the project, discussed the following issues with the Commission: VDOT's adopted road plan for the area; how their proposal for Stickley Drive conforms with VDOT's adopted road plan; the timing of improvements; the integrally -related issue of Warrior Drive; and the Stephens City impacts and how this plan reflects their Comprehensive and Transportation Planning efforts. Commission members believed the timing of the development needed to be in synchronization with what VDOT is going to do and asked the developer if it was possible for him to control the timing of the development. Mr. David Holliday of Dave Holliday Construction, Inc., the applicant/ developer and contract holder of the Carbaugh Estate/ Town Run Lane, spoke with the Commission about the various issues that were brought up for discussion regarding his proposed development. Mr. Holliday gave his reasons for proffering the amount of money he did for fire and rescue services. Regarding the lagoon adjacent to his property, it was his understanding that the Town of Stephens City is under a consent order to close it. Regarding the road issue, Mr. Holliday said he was now completing the final units of the Stephens Ridge Town House Project and can certify that the bottom road of the Stephens Ridge Project will connect to Ridgefield Avenue and will be completed within 90 days; he told the Commission that a bond was posted with the County five years ago for the Warrior Drive connection with Westmoreland and two years ago, he gave a $40,000 lot to the County for this connection. He commented that he built 288 houses in Fredericktowne, which could access Warrior Drive, if it were there; he requested that it be constructed because it would get traffic off Aylor Road and the Town Run stop light. Mr. Holliday said that he was only half complete with Fredericktowne Estates when discussions began on Warrior Drive. Mr. Holliday remarked that very little traffic would be put on that road over the next two years. Mr. Holliday said that he would be glad to contribute toward it, but was not going to pay for the whole road. He pointed out that he has to build Stickley Drive and make the Town Run Lane improvements on day number one. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Ms. Sandra Rittenour, a neighbor ofthe proposed subdivision, residing on a private road that enters onto Town Run Lane, said she spoke at the previous public hearing, but wanted to speak again to express her concerns about the traffic. She was especially concerned about the traffic on Town Run Lane and Stickley Drive and believed the current Level of Service (LOS) was inadequate; she believed an increase in traffic would have a major impact on safety. Ms. Rittenour talked about the inadequacy of the traffic signals on Town Run Lane and the problems created by not having a left-hand turn signal or lines painted on the road. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 630 -4 - The Planning Commission's primary concern was the traffic issue, especially at Stickley Drive and Town Run Lane. Although they understood this particular developer did not create the existing problems and should not be held totally responsible for mitigating those problems, they were hesitant to move forward without having a definite commitment from the developer to participate in that mitigation, possibly during the master develop►�.ent plan stage. Members of the Commission pointed out that if egress from the proposed development is directed up Town Run Lane and the majority of traffic is coming down from Aylor Road, it will be difficult to make a left-hand turn because the intersection lacked a left -turn lane or signal. They believed some change in the signalization at that intersection by VDOT was necessary. The Planning Commissioners requested that the applicant come back with a Warrant Analysis for a traffic signal and a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis in order to help mitigate the increased traffic impact. Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table for 30 days, by a majority vote, Rezoning Application #01-01 of Southern Hills, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone a 105 -acre tract of land from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), to establish 250 single-family residential lots, and does hereby grant the applicant's request for a waiver of the time restraints, in order to give the applicant the opportunity to gather the necessary information for the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and the Level of Service (LOS) Analysis. The vote on this tabling was as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Morris, Light, Marker, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher NO: Miller Rezoning Application #02-01 of Irongate, Inc., submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. to rezone a 14.43 -acre portion of a 48.26 -acre tract from RA (Rural Areas) to M1(Light Industrial) for a fabrication shop and office, which is the current use. This property is located on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 1 1/4 miles west of the Clarke County line and is identified with P.I.N. 87-A-12 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments and talked about the site history, location, site suitability, potential impacts, and the proffer statement. He noted that the applicant's proffer statement attempts to mitigate impacts to adjoining properties and community services by offering to prohibit several land uses that would normally be permitted in the M 1 District and by providing a monetary contribution for fire and rescue services. In summary, Mr. Wyatt stated that the staff believed the following issues needed to be satisfactorily addressed: 1) demonstrate the proposed approach to adequately address the sewage disposal system concerns by the Health Department; 2) revise the Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 631 -5. proffered uses to reflect what will be allowed on-site, instead of what uses will be prohibited; 3) placement of limitations on the design standards allowed in the M1 District due to the proximity of existing residential land uses; 4) establish a generalized development plan which will identify areas of development and areas of preserved environmental features; and 5) establish the required "C" category buffer early in the site development process. Mr. Wyatt next summarized a letter received by the staff from Liberty Baptist Church stating that they have no problems or concerns with the rezoning request and asked the Planning Commission to grant the request. It was pointed out that the road from Rt. 277 to the M1 area is a private road and the issue of an industrial zoning located on a private road was raised by the Commission. Mr. Wyatt stated that normally, an MI use would require state road access; however, in this particular situation, there is an expansion opportunity for the existing business and the lot is considered legally non -conforming. He added that the road would be required to be built to state standards should a subdivision of the parcel be desired. Mr. John C. Lewis of Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., the design firm representing the applicant, Mr. Dennis Ridings of Irongate, Inc., began by addressing the five issues raised by the staff as follows: 1) regarding sewage disposal concerns, most of the employees work off-site and the applicant believes the existing system would be adequate; if not, additional drainfield could be found or an on-site system could be installed; 2) regarding the proffered uses, the applicant would consider proffering out additional uses; 3) regarding limitations on design standards, the applicant believed the standards within the zoning ordinance were adequate because a tremendous amount of natural buffering already exists between existing residential uses, which are approximately 1,000 feet away; 4) he presented the details of their generalized development plan; and 5) regarding early establishment of the buffer, the applicant pointed out the area where the Leland Cypresses would be planted as soon as possible. Commission members inquired about the type and volume oftraffic entering and leaving the site at build -out. Mr. Lewis estimated there will be approximately three or four semi tractor and trailer trips per day and, because 75% of the 40 employees will work off-site, the employee traffic will be light. Commission members inquired if there will be a paint booth or liquid metals and what type of painting would be done. Mr. Dennis Ridings, the property owner, said that painting is conducted outside and they are under total compliance with EPA regulations. Mr. Ridings explained the painting process and types of paints used. In response to other questions by the Commission, Mr. Ridings said that he has operated this same business at this location since 1984 and has never received any complaints from neighbors; when he originally received the M 1 Zoning by the County, the only requirement was for a commercial entrance; and all of the screening on the property has been done on his own, and was not required. There were no citizen comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #02-01 of Irongate, Inc., submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone a 14.43 -acre portion of a 48.26 -acre tract from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial) with the amended Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 632 proffer that will disallow any use on the property other than the existing use, which is a fabrication shop and office, along with the other presented proffers. Rezoning #03-01 of Jeffrey E. Williams, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to rezone 1.75 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R5 (Residential Recreational). This property is located 1.7 miles south of Double Tollsate on the west side of Route 340 and 522 South and identified with P.I.N. 94-A-1 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Tabled for 30 Days Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments and talked about the site history, location, site suitability, potential impacts, and the proffer statement. He noted that the applicant has proffered to limit residential development to "age -restricted" dwelling units and to abandon the existing single-family residence. In summary, Mr. Wyatt stated that the impacts associated with this rezoning proposal are negligible, however, the applicant should meet with the Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department and obtain a comment which ensures this group is comfortable with this application. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this application, said that he was representing Dogwood Development, Inc., the developers of Shenandoah, the contract owners of the Jeffrey E. Williams' property. Mr. Maddox said that he met with Mr. Lauck of the Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department to discuss the project; he also met with the emergency services coordinators for Frederick, Warren, and Clarke Counties. Mr. Maddox said that although the plans for their Town Center show a fire house, there is a difference of opinion about whether or not it should be located in this area. He pointed out, however, that Stephens City does not have a problem serving this project. Mr. Maddox added that they have agreed to forward $20,000 to the County, once the decision has been made on a site for the fire station. Mr. Maddox said that no structures are involved with this particular rezoning and site. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Chris Bates, a resident of Clarke County who was also an adjoining property owner across the street from the parcel to be rezoned and a property owner in the Shawnee District of Frederick County, stated that the proposed rezoning application should not be heard this evening because the property had not been posted with the required "public hearing sign" in accordance with standard procedure. In addition, Mr. Bates said that in passing the master plan, the Board of Supervisors directed Shenandoah to be in compliance in several different areas before proceeding further, including the Virginia Game &Inland Fisheries agreement, fire and safety, and a design for the commercial center. He believed that Shenandoah had not yet complied with any of these issues and, in so much as this particular property has been designated to be the entrance for the Shenandoah properties, he did not believe there was an approved plan from VDOT. Mr. Bates asked that the rezoning be tabled until these issues are properly addressed. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 633 -7 - Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and explained that his directions from the Board were to report on various items prior to final master development plan approval. He said that a complete set of plans have been filed with VDOT and he expects their approvals in the March to April time period. Mr. Maddox could not be certain about the location of the public hearing sign. The Staff could not verify whether the sign was posted in the proper manner, therefore, members of the Commission believed the application should be tabled until the public hearing sign could be properly displayed on the property. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Morris, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend tabling of Rezoning #03-01 of Jeffrey E. Williams, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 1.75 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R5 (Residential Recreational), for 30 days in order for the public hearing sign to be posted properly. 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, presented the 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. Mr. Wyatt said that the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met with County department representatives to discuss new project requests and project modification requests associated with the CIP, they evaluated the projects proposed, and they established a prioritized list. He added that the Board of Supervisors held a discussion on the proposed CIP on January 10, 2001; they did not make any modifications to the proposed CIP. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Mr. Thomas commented that if there will be athletic facilities at the third high school, then complete athletic facilities should be planned instead of just a football stadium that is used by 45-50 football players;,' e believed there should be an indoor swimming pool that could be used year -around by all the citizens of Frederick Cu" . Mr. Thomas requested that his comments be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration so that the third high school could be designed to provide recreational opportunities for the community and not just the student body. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 2001-2002 Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County as recommended by the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee with the suggestion that improvements associated with the third county high school be designed to provide recreational. opportunities for the community and not just the student body. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 634 -S - PUBLIC MEETING Waiver Request by The Hard Way, L.C. and James H. Adams, Jr. to grant an exception from the requirements of Section 144-31C(3) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requiring that easements providing access to lots within minor rural subdivisions be a minimum of 50' in width. This property is located southwest of Rt. 522 on Quiet Meadow Lane and identified with P.I.N. 30-1-122 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval Chairman DeHaven said that he would abstain from discussions and vote on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman DeHaven turned the conduction of the meeting over to Vice Chairman Thomas. Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director, stated that staff has received a letter from Mr. Ian R. D. Williams on behalf of The Hard Way, L.C. and its principal partner, Mr. James H. Adams, Jr., the owners of approximately 134 acres in the Gainesboro District, requesting the division of the parcel into three tracts, which will be comprised of two agricultural lots and one residential lot; the parent tract is presently accessed via an c.Yict_ing right-of-way, the width of which is not defined. Mr. Lawrence stated that the proposed division would create a single residential lot of 14.2 acres, a 25 -acre lot composed almost entirely of flood plain, and the remaining 94.3 acres of the parent tract. He said that no future subdivision will be permitted without Board approval. Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that any lot in a minor rural subdivision either have direct access to a state -maintained road or be served by a right-of-way with a minimum width of 50'. He said that the applicant has attempted to obtain the additional right-of-way needed to meet the requirement of Section 144-31(3) of the Subdivision Ordinance, but has been unsuccessful. Mr. Ian Williams, representing The Hardway L.C. and its principal partner, Mr. James Adams, Jr., stated that the division of the parcels as proposed is for a potential residential site. Mr. Williams said that the larger of the two sites, the 25 -acre piece, will go to Mr. Adams' stepson for agricultural/farming purposes and not residential; he said that it is in a flood zone and has no septic permit rights. The Planning Commission agreed with the staff, given the fact that the 134 -acre parent tract is already served by the right-of-way and the proposed land division would only create one residential lot, that an exemption to the 50' requirement was appropriate. Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Department does hereby recommend approval ofthe waiver request by The Hard Way, L.C. and James H. Adams, Jr. to grant an exception from the requirements of Section 144-31C(3) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requiring that easements providing Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 635 -9 - access to lots within minor rural subdivisions be a minimum of 50' in width. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Marker, Unger, Light, Kriz, Miller, Ours, Morris, Thomas, Fisher ABSTAIN: DeHaven Subdivision #05-01 of Orchard Terrace, Inc. to subdivide a 13.2748 -acre tract into three lots. The property is located at the intersections of North Kent Street, Brick Kiln Road, and Smithfield Avenue and is identified with P.I.N. 54-A-65 in the Stonewall District. Action - Recommended Approval Chairman DeHaven said that he would abstain from discussions and vote on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman DeHaven turned the conduction of the meeting over to Vice Chairman Thomas. Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Lawrence explained that the property is zoned M2 (Industrial General), but does not have an approved master development plan; therefore, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors will be necessary for approval. He said that the parcel presently contains a residence, fronting on Smithfield Avenue, and lumber storage; the proposed subdivision would establish three lots: 10.9564 acres, 2.0237 acres, and 0.146 acres. Mr. Lawrence said that each lot will be required to have state road frontage; therefore, the final plat must reflect the location of the required state road frontage for the 2.0237 -acre lot, as north Kent Street is currently not a state -maintained road. Mr. Eds Coleman, representing the applicant, Orchard Terrace, Inc., stated that Orchard Terrace, Inc. was formerly P. W. Plumly Lumber Corporation and much of the lumber facility that was located within the City boundary has been sold. Mr. Coleman said that the reason for this subdivision request is for the small, residential house on Smithfield, which is located within an industrial zone, and the desire to carve off the 1.9 acres that fronts on North Kent Street. He stated that an application for industrial access funds is pending through VDOT to improve this portion of Kent Street; this application was supported by both the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Winchester City Council in January of 2001. Mr. Coleman explained that until this road is constructed to state standards, the subdivision is not technically attainable; he hoped to obtain the Commission's recommendation and Board's approval for when everything falls into place. The Planning Commission believed the proposed division satisfied the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, contingent upon the applicant satisfying all review agency comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 636 -10 - Subdivision Application #05-01 of Orchard Terrace, Inc. to subdivide a 13.2748 -acre tract into three lots contingent upon the applicant satisfying all of the review agency comments. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Marker, Unger, Light, Kriz, Miller, Ours, Morris, Thomas, Fisher ABSTAIN: DeHaven OTHER INTRODUCTION OF PATRICK T. DAVENPORT, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, introduced Frederick County's newly -hired Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Patrick T. Davenport. Mr. Wyatt stated that Mr. Davenport began work with the County on February 15, 2001. CANCELLATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MARCH 7, 2001 MEETING Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, announced there were no pending applications for the Commission's March 7, 2001 meeting. Mr. Wyatt recommended canceling the March 7 meeting and using the opportunity for a reception in honor of retiring commissioners, Mr. John R. Marker and Mr. W. Wayne Miller. All the Commissioners were in favor of canceling the regularly scheduled meeting in favor of the reception. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITEE M-. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, announced that in the month of March, the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee's (DRRS) meeting, which regularly falls on the fourth Thursday of each month, will fall on the night after a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wyatt inquired if the DRRS members of the Planning Commission could contact him as to whether or not they would prefer to move their DRRS meeting to the fifth Thursday of the month in March. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION FOR RETIRING COMMISSIONERS, W. WAYNE MILLER, GAINESBORO DISTRICT AND JOHN R. MARKER, BACK CREEK DISTRICT Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 637 -11 - Chairman DeHaven read Resolutions of Appreciation honoring two retiring commissioners, Mr. W. Wayne Miller, representing the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and Mr. John R. Marker, representing the Back Creek Magisterial District. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously approved the resolutions for the departing commissioners, as presented. APPOINTMENT OF JOHN R. MARKER AS THE NEW CITIZEN MEMBER ON THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. John R. Marker as the new citizen member of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 2000 Page 638 i C, .� PC REVIEW DATE: 02/2 1/0 1 (tabled); 04/04/01 BOS REVIEW DATE: 04/11/01 REZONING APPLICATION #03-01 JEFFREY E. WILLIAMS To rezone 1.75 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R5 (Residential Recreational) LOCATION: This property is located 1.7 miles south of Double Tollgate on the west side of Route 340 and 522 South. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 94-A-1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District* Use: Vacant South: Zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District* Use: Vacant East: Zoned AOC (Agricultural Open Space Conservation) District Use: Vacant West: Zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District* Use: Vacant * All vacant R5 District land is within the Shenandoah Community Master Development Plan. PROPOSED USE: Residential REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, Jeffrey E. Williams #03-01 Page 2 March 20, 2001 and traffic flow data from the ITE Trip Generation manual Sixth 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. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Recommend sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Requirements of Frederick County Chapter 90; no additional comments. Plan approval recommended. Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company #11: There is not enough information provided for a recommendation by the Stephens City Fire & Rescue Department. Please contact with additional information. Sanitation Authority: We do not have water and sewer adjacent to the parcel. It is outside our water and sewer service area. County Engineer: We do not have any comments on the proposed rezoning. Clarke County Planning & Zoning: No comment. County Attorney: May need to be more specific regarding relationship with Shenandoah; need to be signed by owner. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the parcel proposed for rezoning as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. 2) Location The 1.75 -acre parcel is located outside of the county's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). This tract has frontage along U.S. 340/Route 522 South in Clarke County, which is classified as major arterial. Adjoining land uses are currently vacant; however, the majority of the acreage surrounding this parcel is within the Shenandoah Community Master Development Plan. Jeffrey E. Williams #03-01 Page 3 March 20, 2001 3) Site Suitability The 1.75 -acre parcel does not contain areas of environmentally -sensitive features as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, nor potentially significant historic resources as defined by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. The parcel has approximately 330 feet of frontage along U.S. 340/522 South. The applicant's Impact Analysis Statement suggests that there is a net increase of six daily vehicle trips on average which is negligible for a major arterial road system. The relationship of this parcel to the Shenandoah Master Development Plan suggests that this acreage would be within the area of the proposed Village Center and main access road. Therefore, this acreage may actually eliminate an existing residential land use without creating new residences. 4) Potentiallmpacts a) Community Facilities and Service The Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department expresses a concern in their inability to comment on the proposed rezoning due to insufficient information. 5) Proffer Statement The applicant has prepared a proffer statement that has been signed, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. The applicant has proffered to limit residential development to "age -restricted" dwelling units and to abandon the existing single-family residence. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/21/01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The impacts associated with this rezoning proposal are negligible; however, staff believes that the applicant should meet with the Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Department and obtain a comment which ensures this group is comfortable with this application. Jeffrey E. Williams #03-01 Page 4 March 20, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION FOR 02/21/01 MEETING: An adjoining property owner told the Commission that he could not find the public hearing sign displayed anywhere on the subject property and asked for the rezoning to be tabled until the sign could be properly posted. He also believed that "Shenandoah" had not yet complied with several of the issues that were raised by the Board. Neither the applicant's representative nor the staff could confirm that the public hearing sign was posted properly. Therefore, the Commission voted unanimously to table the rezoning application for 30 days so that the sign could be properly displayed. (Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) 0:Wgendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\StaffReport\200I\Jeffrey WiIIiams_REZ.wpd OUTPUT MODULE Revenue- Net Capital (Unadivatod) Cost Balance Facililles Impa•;1 APPLICANT: PIN 94-A-1 50 Net Fiscal Impact $10.271 57,221 $21,486 LAND USE TYPE Single Family Costs of Impact Credit: $241 Credits to be Take REAL EST VAL $393.300 Requ•ed (entered in Cur Budget Cur, Budget Cap. Future CIP/ FIRE 8 RESCUE 11 Capital Faciil ies cot sum only) Opet Cap Equip Exocnd+aebt S. Taxes. Other Fire and Rescue Department $2.666 Elementary Schools $12.240 Middle Sciools $6.487 $1,512 $8,759 High Schools $9.980 Pars and Recreation $4,372 $1.118 Public Libary $801 $241 She•iffs Offices $564 $198 $0 $104 Administration Building $724 50 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $921 $2.760 $555 SUBTOTAL $38,754 $4,471 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT SO NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Total Potectiai Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital (Unadivatod) Cost Balance Facililles Impa•;1 SO 50 $2.669 $10.271 57,221 $21,486 $1.118 $786 $3.586 $241 $169 $631 $302 $212 $352 $0 SO $724 $3,316 $2.331 $0 S9,315 51,463 $15.248 s0 Net Cost Per Duelling Unit $889 $7.162 $1,195 $210 S1t7 5241 SO $10,720 $28,034 $9,345 $o $0 $0 INDEX: '1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0 INDEX: '1.0'4 Rev -Cost Bal. '0 0' if Ralio to Co Avg:_ 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.491 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.703 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are Input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations Calculations is Input in row total of second column (zero if negative): included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5 NPV of future taxes paid to bring cu -Tent county up to standard for new facil lies, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest d the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Dale 10125/00 EAW P.I.N. 94-A-1 Rezoning: Assumes 3 Single Famly Dwellings on 1.75 acres zoned R5 District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model nm date REZ # 03-01 Location Map For: Jeffrey E. Williams PIN: 94-A-1 Office of Mapping and GIS, 02/01, Agray k ZONING REQUEST PROFFt�' Property Identification Number 94-A-1 Opequon Magisterial District JEFFREY E. WILLIAMS PROPERTY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seg., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional rezoning, the undersigned applicant herby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application 903-01 for the rezoning of 1.75 acres from Rural Area (RA) to Residential Recreational Community (R5). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the.applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successor or assigns. Housing Type Generated By This Rezoning The undersigned, who owns the above described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for 1.75 acres, from RA to R-5, the undersigned shall voluntarily limit any development allowed as the result of rezoning to only those dwelling units allowed within the "Master Development Plan" Notes for Shenandoah, which are "age restricted" by definition and governed by the overall Homeowners Association regulations within Shenandoah. It is further proffered that the existing single family use shall be permanently abandoned. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY QW Bv: Date. STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: l'he Foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q day of 2001, by Jeffrey E. Williams. My commission expires j�js}p1 Notary Public 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials, are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I0, Applicant(s) Owner(s) JW4 C 41 Date %/Z S"l© / Date Daae Date 4 Summary The following Impact Analysis Statement is provided in summary form for the property known as "Jeffrey E. Williams." The property is located along Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 5221340 South) surrounded by the "Shenandoah" project. The land to be rezoned includes 1.75 acres. The parcel is currently zoned Rural Area (RA). The requested rezoning is to change the current 1.75 acres of RA to R-5 zoning. The property is under contract for sale to Dogwood Development, the developer of Shenandoah. The Impact Analysis Statement for WiWWns is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. The model projects a positive fiscal impact. The owners / developers have offered proffers that will offset the projected negative fiscal amounts projected by the Frederick County model There are no residential units proposed on this tract of land as pail of this rezoning request. The property will be used primarily as "entrance road" that connects to Front Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522 South) helping implement the planned road network system. The proposed use (road and parking) will displace 1 single famnly home site. Environmental features that limit the development are identified and incorporated for design consideration. Public sewer and water service will be available to the property. Electric service is available to the property. The property is presently served by private well and septic. Impact Analysis tntrMi irtinn The land requested for rezoning consists of 1.75 acres which is a portion of a 3 acre tract owned by Jeffrey E. Williams, Deed Book 568, Page 105, Frederick County. The tar map reference for this parcel is PIN 94-A-1. The property is an out parcel from the tracts known historically as "Wheatlands" and is now known as "Shenandoah." The site is under contract for purchase by Dogwood Development for use as a portion of the entrance road and parking lot additions for the commercial facilities in the Village Center at Shenandoah. The portion of this site included in Frederick County needs to be rezoned to R-5 in order to be consistent with the development planning. Although this rezoning allows an increase of 4 age restricted units to Shenandoah, no change to the Master Development Plan is proposed at this time. Suitability of Site The 1.75 acre site is not subject to 100 year flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes or mature woodlands. The existing use is single family and the underlying geology is limestone. Surrounding Properties Lands on the east, north and west of the site are presently not in use. Lands on the south are agricultural and used for primarily hay field with some crop tillage at times. All lands surrounding this site are a part of the Shenandoah development and this site will be master planned so as not to create noise, glare, fumes, pollution, odors or other nuisance factors that would be a factor on adjacent owners. Traffic At present the traffic generation for this single family site is 10 units per day. Up to 4 "age restricted" units can be created by gross zoning within the R-5 development. Traffic studies have shown that traffic from age restricted communities are 4 vehicles per day per unit of single family use. On this basis 16 trips per day could be generated from this rezoning. This trip per day increase is 6 over that existing "by right." Substantial traffic improvements on U.S. Route 340 and internal to the Shenandoah site are being created which will handle this increase in traffic. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Pursuant to the Master Plan filed for Shenandoah there will be no generation of sewer or need for water supply for this project. The Shenandoah project will create a wastewater treatment facility and water supply system that will handle site plan amenities and housing pursuant to the density calculation shown on the Master Plan. Drainag)e The site drainage is generally from west to east on the site and will be accommodated by improved stormwater management facilities associated with the improvements of U.S. Route 340. Solid Waste Disposal There will be no solid waste generated on the rezoned portion of the site. Solid waste generated as the result of any increase in allowable density will be handled by a commercial hauler in accordance with the Homeowners Association Procurement Standards. The Frederick County Landfill has capacity to handle this increase. Historic Sites and Structures There are no known historic sites located on the 1.75 acres requested for rezoning. Impact on Community Facilities Attached Impact Analysis was created by the County's impact model based on the loss of one single family use in the County and the generation of 4 active adult age restricted units. The capital facilities impact model shows positive impact for capital costs for community facilities as a result of this change in zoning. Other Impacts No other impacts are identified. Impact Model Attached is the Capital Facilities Impact Model run for the Williams Rezoning: The net cost per dwelling unit (using the 50% rule for schools and parks) is $5,636.00. This project will be displacing one unit. The net benefit to the Countv of 4 age restricted units per report by Dr. Stephen Fuller, George Mason University, dated May 2000 is $2,917.00 per unit or $11,668.00 total. The 10 year present value at 6°'0 of a series of payments of $11,668.00 is $85,877.00. Under the assumption presented, the onetime value of this rezoning to the County is $91,513.00. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Telephone: 667-2139 Address: c/o Charles E. Maddox Jr. 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Jeffrey E. Williams Address: P.O. Box 87 Stephens City, VA 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Name- Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Telephone: 540-869-6055 Telephone: 667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments _ Plat X Fees _ Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Jeffrey E_ Williams 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Properly: PARCEL ID NUMBER 87-A-103 27-A-16 (Clarke Co_) 94-A-1 USE Vacant Vacant Residential Residential Residential ZONING R-5 R-5 & AOC AOC 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). ± 1.7 miles south of Double Tollgate on the west side of U.S. Route 340 & 522 2 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 94-A-1 Districts Magisterial: Opequon High School: Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Sherando R.E. A for Middletown 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 0 Townhome 0 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots 0 Mobile Home 0 Hotel Rooms 0 (Rezoning R-5 adds 4 dwelling units to overall project density) Office 0 Retail 0 Restaurant 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 0 0 1.75 Ac (Parking Lot & Road) 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) a - Owner(s) Date 111610, Date Date Date 4 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning 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 properly 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 2`4 floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. 87-A-103 Jasbo, Inc. and Fred L. Glaize, III P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 94-A-1 Jeffrey E. Williams P.O. Box 87 Stephens City, VA 22655 27-A-16 Jasbo, Inc. and Fred L. Glaize, III (Clarke Co.) P.O Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 Williams Parcel .afii'69 i ,,MW .� . -, 3d d d Sa 9 _9 d , f 'r 'OVA, r ; . J•. r � yr � r +.f M ' S'S9S + •� r - �' • *: v— 6, cem / �? .Q . 659 669 664 _ Co •r � I` `\`• ". � a �„ " � � • Pic:inity Line Table 1-2 N5578'20"W 326.37' O 2-3 N34 41'40"E 217.90' O 3-4 S6831'47 E 283.15' rj 4-1 S2431'14"W 287.19' ��' <v Tract Line ����`t DB 463 PG 366 (Frederick)\ JASBO, INC" & FRED L. GLARE Iff yZI DB 543 PG. 643 (FREDERICK OB 634 PG. 499 (FREDERICK 87-A-103 (FREDERICK) EXISTING ZONING: R-5 EXISTING USE: VACANT 3 PROPOSED REZONING F `\1 RA fo R-5 1 75 ACRES 4 2 Tract Line z DB 463 PG. 366 (Frederick) JEFFREY E. WUMAIS 4 V DB 568 PG. 105 (FREDERICK) / O 94—A-1 (FREDERICK) O EXISTING ZONING RA & AOC EXISTING USE. RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ZONING: R-5 & AOC PROPOSED USE RESIDENTIAL DB 91 PG.J723 ASBO, CIN RKE �F B 3 2 p� II! DB 92 PG. 534 ((CLARK �DB 385 PG. 302 (FREDERICK) O (FREDERICK) DB 174 PG. 413 (CLARK )—DB 634 PG 499 (FREDERICK) 27—A-16 (CLARKE) Q �2 EXISTING ZONING R-5 & AOC Q� EXISTING USE: VACANT O r PROPOSED REZONING OF 1.75 ACRES TH OF ` standing in the name of r JEFFREY E. WILLIAMS P. DUANE r. Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County,, Virginia n BROWNo a DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 SCALE: 1"=200 DOGOOD/WILUAMS REZONE �✓ua..��a.v.++: gn art w. dlffard & cNivelates, Inc. NO. 1285 ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNER'.5 - SURVEYORS 8758 130-C aa. ciwaniah DrMw F' uv. VkpFin 22 01 2DO N0�' Cmnam" t SHEET <q�o sURVE( ) �a 2113 O 100 200 40 aw esu- 1 _ OF • 1 • • C7 1\ PC REVIEW: 04/04/01 BOS REVIEW: 05/09/01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-01 DAVID AND LISA MOORE (Seasonal Colors Landscape & Lawn Maintenance, Inc.) Landscape Contracting Business LOCATION: This property is located at 120 Green Spring Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 22-7-1-4 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential, Church, and General Store PROPOSED USE: Landscape Contracting Business REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. However, prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Inspections Department: Existing garage shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 340, Use Group B (Business), of the BOCA National Building Code/ 1996. Other code that applies is CABO A117.1-92, Usable and Accessible Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area to utilized at the time of Change of Use permit application. Permit shall be issued and inspections approved prior to occupancy of the new use. Fire Marshal: Recommend portable fire extinguishers. Fire lanes not required unless above- ground storage tank is installed. Flammable liquids storage tank requires additional permit from Building Official and, if issued, will cause additional codes to apply. David and Lisa Moore, CUP #02-01 Page 2 March 23, 2001 Health Department: The Health Department has no objections as long as the employees other than the bookkeeper do not have access to the bathrooms in the home. (Note: See attached letter from David Moore, applicant, to the Health Department.) Sanitation Authority: We do not serve this area. Citv of Winchester: No Comment Planning and Zoning: This conditional use permit (CUP) application is in response to a zoning violation complaint that staff received. The applicant was cited for the operation of an illegal business (landscape contracting business); obtaining a CUP for such a business is an available remedy to this violation. The property is located within the White Hall Rural Preservation Subdivision. There is presently a residential structure with an attached three -bay garage on the subject property. This subdivision, as well as the lot in question, is located in close proximity to the intersection of Apple Pie Ridge Road and Green Spring Road. The adjoining uses to the subject site include residential, church, and a country general store. The applicant has advised staff that a majority of his business is conducted off-site. Only office functions of the business (bookkeeping, etc.) are located on-site. The business currently has eight employees who work off-site and park their vehicles at the property. One office employee will work in the residence three days a week. The subject property would be the residence of the property owner, as well as the office for the business operation. The property contains a large gravel area adjacent to the residence. This gravel area provides access to the three -bay garage, as well as a storage area for the company trucks, trailers and equipment associated with the landscape business. The applicant has stated that he intends to establish a landscape screen around this gravel area. The screening would lessen the impact of the business storage area on the adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04-04-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission determine that this request is appropriate, staff would suggest the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No business sign shall be allowed. 3. All equipment associated with the business shall be screened from surrounding properties and roads by a landscape screen, that is planted in conformance with the attached plan. 4. Landscape screen shall be in place within 90 days after approval ofthis Conditional Use Permit, and shall be maintained to ensure conformance with condition #3 Any change of use or expansion of the business will require a new Conditional Use Permit. aii':r.s�r.ass �.,r� � � Ifift � >•;,.�...� am`sra.,,..r�.,..,..� r� wl �I SM: aR. — pu�gor 703-f2I-6i to - Ce It 7vis-928-t1u Cell (1) 54G-639-301 0 Health C'M-p rt (Kw-fr i is i s iia' rsci ir�a vvsaFr►nis$F Winchester. VA 22601 i�G; isV VAGldii t7fJ1I1i�J flttQyJ rtDear Mt . ernpj-er. -` the bookkeeperlthree =adays _rmr v=me k}� use wrthe bathroom .._- t v.th ham_ 1 5141' tYif tai CSI7LJliJYCa2S U[7 SIUI !1iSl[B Yltii_.-B2sm- to 12141 -Iey S IoV!TKK 2-'J"" [7S'1 nnT IIlues TSSQSTI Si 1,.r91 ely, (A ryl J I David W. Wi00ie k 7-0 ' .i J F. S' R C 5 4 0 t, Sf-41] S F} 'a'.S lw� ri J 1 R Gf i A - j�: T_. - a 71 j ERDAL 22 71 7 SHERIFF 22 71 5 L OARC54 A D, INC - --- WHITEHALL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 22 A 54 Seasonal Colo Larxscape & Lawn Maintenance, Inc. (David & Lisa Moore-) 22 71 4 ROSY -- - -------- 32 A 55 UPDIKE 32 A 56 KI NG 22 A 52D RICHARDS 22 71 3 CUP# 02 - 01 Location Map For: Seasonal Colors Landscape & Lawn Maintenance, Inc. (David & Lisa Moore) ,- ! -. PIN: -� ' 22-7-1-4 -i�� �� i Office of Mapping and GIS, 03/01, Agray J; l \ i' — a � r\ 22 71 4 T TTT 4 S I 7 CUP# 02 - 01 Location Map For: Seasonal Colors Landscape & Lawn Maintenance, Inc. (David & Lisa Moore) ,- ! -. PIN: -� ' 22-7-1-4 -i�� �� i Office of Mapping and GIS, 03/01, Agray r. MAR O 8 Z001 Submittal Deadline 01,4,1w,'! &/ 4��" coGL P/C Meeting 4 -4-0i EPT, OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMENT Bos Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner other) NAME: -DAA a- LISA MOGRC- ADDRESS: 13-0 GRe,f-r' 5Q1210!� VA aa(Qo3 I J TELEPHONE 54 U (D 6 5 - W5S 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: K oo"- 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 1a4 W►ocheStg VA aa( 03 i 1_ I L r� 1e�; � �tc�C,4, RG� CC7 Way '—Ace Si qo a i��lr�c �A l! %+C ke- Ic- ot,ytU C)ru-eN Sp600, R� , KS� wje.w" or' 4. The propert� has a road frontage of SD 0 feet and a depth of %. g% feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by0 1' a- A Mb6/Ce as evidenced by deed from J4�s 1 F;AgNC�wI SeKyi-CC5 recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 9%.0 on page 900 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification Magisterial District-,CSbov-O Current Zoning 1A 7. Adjoining Property: USE North East ST�Ke. South HOUSC West }40ud e_ No. ZONING A f YA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) Re's i�C�4iA I SmR11 L-"Q0CPJCApe, C,0rnot y _......... _. 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: // 1A 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}��&,905, R)Ckt/ &�- PoxfaNyg ADDRESS 3D( -3 Pie, f dces 9J `] PROPERTY IrD,# dg,- - /- 3 NAME RA4 E ADDRESS 17, GSiNcj PROPERTY ID # NAME EMA 1, &i'R ADDRESS % a0 V A .l �', . Rsd4.(, Rd r% '� (,vE/�rches�`ct��Uf! aa(�o3-33�� PROPERTY ID# a - ` ' NAME rkuii MAC)KCh..ARd SNL• ADDRESS P6. Fjol, a3 ,` ) S!) g PROPERTY ID# 3 a NAME Ro4,., .�O��P`l d��z9►`� %� ADDRESS %q)JJ VA PROPERTY ID# 3 a-- A - 55 NAME �or kz��ff�t5 11J s�'pA�ty� 7 / PROPERTY ID# 3 a -A -576 L01, NAME Sh e q-,� ,L01,t(,Iq rv, M PROPERTY ID# 3 ). - )Q - S2 LohAe'6rall t}Nc�<-a N1c�hodi51 NAME PROPERTY ID# D -a" A ` S ADDRESS 3 �o l APA-- Pic' RiJc�t- Rd (3)0ch -t-< jVA �2a�oJ7a1 ADDRESS � a-5 0 �- F R) d!`� O iVjAe. ee-j VVq �20W3 - -2707 ADDRESS JS"oa �e �(�; � KJ Wi0C'k4'tk ), fA '!�Db03 - y1-1)? Rod ;I Arr I ran [DEfta J71&6,Yl 171-8-9155 961 nT.iP OK95OPGO265JV '4-Y 28'52" IRFL- 50.00, LOT 7 P -1 STORY X 'o'fZZt/NCYAONJ v UkOZ-? P.7s pf Lor 4 A 0; 7 1 A 10rC -v Chord N R6'2946" W 17t87 ins IRS LOT J IRS Af AV7Z-5 .07.j/ - i. No rflzr REPORT rvRv1sHm Z IRF -IRON REW POUND ATS-bqaV REW SET WPP -WOOD PO*rR POLE PED-lflXlT Y PEDESTAL C0NC-CCNCRVr AqL.auxaM RiSMIC770N LINE' a me LOT -wo*N HrRrav aks omRay WMW ZONE T: AN ARFA OF MINIUAL flOODING PV? FIR.Al COMAIUNITY PAMI NO. 510063 0075 8 WED JULY 17, 1973, 4. E4SEMEKS OTHER MAN SHOWN 0 wpp CONC PAHO 48 35Z* 51- srai,), 5il COIR40,r 4 Jo 56s CoNc /As' k 570OF HOUSE LOC477ON SURVEY LOT 4 - WHITEHALL SUBDIVISION CAIMESSORO AIAGISTERL41 DISTRICT fREVERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 5C4Lf- /1-100' 0320. dw a , DETA Op iLTH 1ft�l 94,;"- i ci �pl S- -W- "a"h No. 0101843 MARSH & L E D G E 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. FAX (540) 667-0469,. , J�ov 12 . Additional comments, if any: s301,SA i CGIorzs LANA6CAPe Ad�rbo,01 R� /-Of t, W"t +kocks r imileKS akc r: (Z e4 . s J, 6f 4 A zactJ I es al, +PQ-, u�4 QgWil5d Neu'� PA�caMc, Id WAe� Ccxqpg,-Sy Tam J -✓adze, Cite. CAal eA .(On1 EAST ePJ4 Of [IARC i+34 Ise- 1 e,,AnNcQ r-woRP.SS & - `r,' oN 13��� s h a- w�� Ley f4#3CT cocss L j`�ees !3KC)L aha f a -%� a yeAr . I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant �Q�3�-� (1�. mocu- Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address /20 Gkze SKS Rd .,W;I'�(�es+CK VA a ,(003 Owners' Telephone No. s'O w S ` 9gJr TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: SCAle- I " = aO ' IaD Grce-N SpRiN� (,) Le-yfyqod Cypp-t4l I Ley /cjNd Cypp ,ts s (D fc, '7 �s�'�Kq �����4s ��i P C�ce ;C 1/ e b Yerica A fit. l Y If Cl e— om Ae (I 1, �5 -------------------------- 5 Michele S. Monke 4452 Apple Pie Ridge Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 March 21, 2001 Mr. Richard C. Shickle Planning and Zoning Commission 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2001 DEPT, OF PLANNING'DEVELGFMENT. U ,.,¢t, e� ,L 4tm Co. AdW n : s ov 3123,b1 45A' I am opposed to the special permit request for the landscaping business at 120 Green Springs Road, in White Hall Virginia. This committee has already granted a special permit to Steve Duncan just a few doors down on White Hall Road for his refinishing business, in which he poisons our air daily and has ruined the retirement home of my elderly mother. Steve Duncan was granted a cottage license to do his business because the noxious fumes from his business did not bother anyone but his unfortunate neighbor. But, certainly our vision is intact, and we can see what is going on at 120 Green Springs Road. Surely the zoning and planning commission is not wanting this area to become commercial. Isn't this area residential? Am I having a problem understanding what that word means? Hopefully, there will be enough people that will have the good sense to complain about the atrocity at 120 Green Springs Road. It looks like a strip mall parking lot. It is, in a word, trashy. I feel certain that if a member on the board had spent $200,000.00 and up for a new home in what is considered to be a beautiful area, there would be no question about it. I would hope that our pocketbooks don't get in the way of our common sense and our good will towards humankind again! Sincerely, C)IV4"�Michele S. Monke PLANNING COMNIISSION WORK SESSION Frederick County Sanitation Authority Staff facilitated a discussion with the Planning Commission on March 21, 2001 to determine what issues related to water and sewerwere ofinterest or ofconcem. The following list includes the issues that were identified by commission members: • What are the responsibilities of xhe Sanitation Authority and the Service Authority and how do they relate to each other? • What methodology is used by the Sanitation Authority staff when determining if adequate water and sewer capacities exist for a land use proposal or a rezoning proposal? • What safeguards are in place to ensure that the existing customer base does not experience rate increases to subsidize a development proposal? • What is the mechanism for determining when the size of service lines need to be upgraded? How are those improvements paid for? • How does the Sanitation Authority project future water needs for the community? • What are the various water resources that are available to the community? • Is the Sanitation Authority able to identify how many years out the community can be served by the existing water and sewer capacities? COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director RE: Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments DATE: March 5, 2001 FAX: 540/665-6395 Staff discussed the need to conduct a comprehensive review of the Planning Commission's Bylaws with Chairman Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., to ensure that procedures were up-to-date. The last amendment to the Planning Commission's Bylaws occurred on October 16, 1996 when standards were established for the tabling of agenda items. Please find attached the current Planning Commission Bylaws which have been reviewed by staff. Staff comments have been provided for specific sections for the purpose of discussion. Staff asks that the Planning Commission evaluate these recommendations and provide direction for potential amendments to the bylaws. Staff will modify all sections as determined by the Planning Commission and schedule an opportunity for action at a later date. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Commission .ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.1-427.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Staff Comment. References to the County Code and State Code need to be updated to reflect the correct chapter and section information. 1-2 The official title ofthis 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 21 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick Comm. Staff Comment. References to the County Code need to be updated to reflect the correct chapter information. -1- ARTICLE IV -OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor 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 Commission. Staff Comment. This may need to be revised to state ...as assigned by the Board of Supervisors. Staff is unclear fit is appropriate for the members of the Commission to give assignments to the Chairman. -2- 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Commission. Staff Comment. Same comment as in Section 4-3-1-6. This may need to be revised to state ...as assigned by the Board of Supervisors or the Chairman of the Commission. 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. Staff Comment. It may be prudent to establish a minimum time limit for the maintenance of files associated with Commission business. This would assist staff in maintaining adequate file space within the department. The State Code only requires official files and recordings to be maintained for a three-year period. 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. 4-3-4 Term of Office - 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. 4-3-5 Temporary Chairman -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 -3- a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice-chairman. AR'I IC -LE, V - C-03 . MI T TEES Staff Comment. The Sections within this Article need to be numbered correctly. 6-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 6-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose, membership, and terms of office for each committee. Staff Comment: Currently, this Section is not reflected in the CPPS or the DRRS information. Staff will develop a mission statementfor each committee to be reviewed at a subsequent meeting. However, it would be beneficial to receive inputfrom the Commission on membership and terms of office for each committee. 6-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 6-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 6-5 The chairman and vice-chairman shall be ex -officio members of every committee. ARTICLE VII -MEETINGS Staff Comment. This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 7-2 Regular meetings shall be held at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. 7-3 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. Staff Comment. This may need to be revised to eliminate the secretary's ability to call a special meeting. 7-4 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. -4- 7-5 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for executive sessions as allowed by the Code of Virginia, as amended. Staff Comment: It may be prudent to list the State Code sections which permit executive sessions for reference in the event they are ever utilized. 7-6 The Planning Commission may hold an executive session only according to the requirements of, and for the purposes described by, the Code of Vir inia, as amended. Staff Comment: This may be redundant due to Section. 7-5. It may read better if these two sections were combined 7-7 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission at the first meeting of each calendar year. Staff Comment. This language appears to be fairly inflexible. The Commission should not be bound to holding work sessions at the end of a meeting if it makes more sense to hold them before the meeting. Furthermore, it may be difficult to know where and when a work session should be held for the entire calendar year during the Commission's first meeting. ARTICLE VIII - VOTING Staff Comment. This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 8-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 8-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE IX - OPERATING RULES Staff Comment: This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 9-1 Order of Business 9-1-1 Call to Order 9-1-2 Consideration of Minutes -5- 9-1-3 Secretary's Report Staff Comment. It may be appropriate to eliminate this section as this has not occurred historically. 9-1-4 Committee Reports 9-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda 9-1-6 Unfinished Business 9-1-7 New Business 9-1-8 Adjournment 9-2 Minutes - The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting and, on adoption by the Commission, these minutes shall become a public record. The Chairman and Secretary shall sign all minutes at the end of the year, certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Staff Comment. It would be beneficial to reword this section to state that minutes shall not be made available to the public until they are formally adopted by the Commission. Furthermore, the last sentence of this section should be reworded to eliminate ...at the end of the year, and modified to state ...following approval by a majority vote of the Commission. 9-3 Procedures 9-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 9-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 9-3-3 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 9-3-3-1 Report by the Secretary, County Staff or Commission Members Staff Comment. This should be amended to state ...Report by County Staff. 9-3-3-2 Presentation by Applicant 9-3-3-3 Citizen Comment 9-3-3-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 9-3-3-5 Discussion by Commission 9-3-3-6 Motion and action by Commission 9-3-4 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may allow public comment. 9-3-5 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 9-3-6 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. 9-3-7 Public Hearings 9-3-7-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virainia or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia. 9-3-7-2 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. 9-3-7-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 9-3-8 Master Development Plans - Master development plans shall be considered by the Commission according to the following procedures: 9-3-8-1 Presentation by Applicant -7- 9-3-8-2 Report by the Secretary, County Staff or Commission Members Staff Comment: This should be amended to state ...Report by Cowujty Staff. 9-3-8-3 Citizen Comment 9-3-8-4 Rebuttal by Applicant 9-3-8-5 Discussion by Commission 9-3-8-6 Motion and action by Commission Staff Comment: This section should be eliminated, unless the Commission would like to sped procedures for all applications that are duly considered. 9-3-9 Tabling (Revised 10/16/96) 9-3-9-1 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. 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. 9-3-9-2 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. 9-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re, advertised for consideration by the Plaru-ung 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. 9-3-9-4 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. 9-3-10 Work sessions 9-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 9-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meeting or at times scheduled by the Commission for work sessions at the first meeting of the year. Staff Comment. (Same comment from Section 7-7) This language appears to be fairly inflexible. The Commission should not be bound to holding work sessions at the end of a meeting if it makes more sense to hold them before the meeting. Furthermore, itmaybe difficult to know where and when a work session should be held for the entire calendar year during the Commission's first meeting. 9-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 9-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 9-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 9-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 9-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 9-3-11 Adjournment - 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. Staff Comment. The Commission may want the ability to waive this requirement in the event of a heavy agenda. If a waiver of this requirement is desired, the Commission should only do so by majority vote of the voting membership prior to consideration of the agenda item. ARTICLE X -AMENDMENTS Staff Comment: This Article needs to be numbered correctly and the Section needs to be renumbered to coincide. 10-1 These bylaws maybe amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice. FILE: A:\BYLAWS\PlanningCommissionBylaws-RecommendedAmendments.wpd (REVISED 10/16/96) -10-