HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 03-19-97 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
MARCH 19, 1997
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Minutes of February 5, 1997 ............................................ A
2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................... B
3) Committee Reports ................................................... C
4) Citizen Comments ...................................... ............. D
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations,
Section 165-24, Height Limitations; Exceptions; Section 165-48.6, Commercial
Telecommunications Facilities; and Article XXI, Definitions, of the Frederick
County Code. The proposed amendments will establish procedures and standards to
allow for the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities within all zoning districts
specified in this Chapter.
(Mr. Wyatt)......................................................... E
DISCUSSION ITEM
6) Implementation of a no through truck traffic policy for Tasker Drive (relocated
Route 642).
(Mr. Wyatt) ......... ___.................................... F
7) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on February 5, 1997.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back
Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Robert A.
Monis, Shawnee District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M.
Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light,
Stonewall District; and Terry Stone, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Eric R Lawrence,
Planner Il; Jeffrey C. Everett, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of December 4,
1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
2
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee - 2/4/97 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee addressed a request from a group of
citizens from Route 629 for re -prioritization of the hard -surface road improvement plan. They proposed a
methodology for prioritizing routes to be placed on the plan and the Transportation Committee is going to
examine that over the next couple months.
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine reported that the Call Team discussed the issue of the shortage of skilled help in
factories, for example, machinists, tool makers, die makers, etc. The Call Team has been in touch with the Lord
Fairfax Community College and the school district.
Sanitation Authority (FCSA) - 01/21/97 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the FCSA adopted a resolution relating to the issue of the
DeGrange property obtaining water from the City of Winchester. Mrs. Copenhaver read the resolution which
in part said, "...the Authority re -affirms its position that the location of the City's new water storage tank north
of Route 50 and west of Winchester does not provide the City any right or approval to provide water and/or sewer
service to any land in the County..."
Mrs. Copenhaver said that Mr. Ned Cleland discussed an agreement between the City, the
FCSA, and the Service Authority dealing with the increase in the capacity and cost sharing of the Opequon plant.
Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company will be placing a communications
antennae on top of the County's water storage tank.
Winchester City Planning Commission
Mr. DiBenedetto, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported that the City Planning
Commission has completed work on the review of the HRl Zoning and will be rezoning quite a few of these
properties at the public hearing scheduled for February 18. He added that the Commission is continuing with its
review of the Comprehensive Pian.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1997-1998 Capital Improvements Plan CIP for Frederick Count
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Lawrence presented the 1997-1998 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). He said that the plan
consists of 22 projects with a total cost of roughly $83 million. He said there were four new projects --a third
County high school, two new elementary schools (Back Creek and Gainesboro Districts), and a skateboard park.
Mr. Marker commented that Priority #7, the Transportation/ Maintenance/ Warehouse Project,
was designated to begin in 1998-99, but no funding was listed. Mr. Lawrence stated that the School Board is
anticipating this to be a County -wide facility and would like everyone to know that discussions are taking place,
however, costs and a timetable have not yet been determined. Mr. Marker stated that if this project is going to
be prioritized as high as #7, it should have at least an estimated cost figure. Other members of the Commission
agreed.
Mr. Thomas inquired if there was any correlation between a project's priority and when it was
funded. Mr. Lawrence stated that the County's priority is established after the Comprehensive Plan Committee
has reviewed the requests and priority is based on the County's budget.
The subject of the accuracy of the estimated costs and how they were determined was raised.
It was noted that cost estimates are provided by each individual department and are usually the department's "best
guess cost estimate." It was pointed out that the CIP is considered to be a "planning document" only.
There were no public comments regarding the CIP.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the 1997-1998 Capital Improvements Plan for Frederick County as presented.
Amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165-48.5, Adult
Care Residences, Assisted Living Care Facilities, and Convalescent or Nursing Homes; Article VI,
Residential Performance District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses; Article X, Business and Industrial
Zoning Districts, Section 165-82B, B2 Business General District Use Regulations; and Article XXI,
Definitions, of the Frederick County Code.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt stated that during the January 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission discussed the draft language to incorporate assisted living care and adult care facilities into the
zoning ordinance. He said that the Planning Commission felt that assisted living care facilities and adult care
facilities would be an appropriate use in the RP (Residential Performance) District through the issuance of a
rd
conditional use permit and as a "by -right" use in the B2 (Business General) District with reasonable performance
standards. Mr. Wyatt stated that during this discussion, the Commission directed the staff to eliminate the
performance standards pertaining to structure heights and recreational amenities, to incorporate convalescent or
nursing homes into the uses requiring performance standards in the B2 District, and to advertise the revised
language for public hearing.
Mr. Wyatt said that one item under the Supplementary Use Regulations came to light after this
amendment was advertized. That item is the establishment of parking requirements for the use and it was
suggested that it may be more appropriate to move this requirement to another section of the Supplementary Use
Regulations where parking standards are discussed. He said that upon consultation with the County Attorney,
it was felt that as long as the recommendation from this body was in that fashion, it could be advertised that way
for the Board without bringing it back to the Commission.
There were no public comments.
The Commissioners were satisfied with the amendment as presented and with placing the
parking requirements to a different section under Supplementary Use Regulations.
Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use
Regulations, Section 165-27, Off -Street Parking; Parking Lots, and Section 165-48.5, Adult Care Residences,
Assisted Living Care Facilities, and Convalescent or Nursing Homes; Article VI, Residential Performance
District, Section 165-60, Conditional Uses; Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 165-
82B, B2, Business General Use Regulations; and Article XXI, Definitions.
The proposed amendments will allow adult care residences and assisted living care facilities in the RP
(Residential Performance) District with a conditional use permit and in the B2 (Business General) District as a
by -right use, and will establish performance standards for adult care residences, assisted living care facilities, and
convalescent or nursing homes that are located in the B2 (Business General) District.
Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Residential Performance
District, Section 165E, Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt stated that this amendment, which was discussed at the Commission's January 15
meeting, eliminates a design standard which prohibits windows on the zero lot line side of a dwelling unit under
the dimensional and design standards for single-family detached zero lot line developments.
The Commission felt this language was not necessary, as requirements in the CABO One and
Two Family Dwelling Code prohibit openings in building walls that are within three feet of a property line. The
Commission also felt that duplicate language in the building code and zoning ordinance may complicate matters
if a property owner desired to go through the appeals process for relief from the requirement.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Residential
Performance District, Section 165E, Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line. This amendment will eliminate the
sentence, "Windows are prohibited on the lot line side."
OTHER
Intersection of Routes 642 and 647 - Tasker Drive Road Improvement Proiect
Mr. Thomas had safety concerns about the intersection of Route 642 and Route 647, which has
been under construction for the last eight months or so. Mr. Thomas said that since early or mid-November,
barrels have been placed along the way; however, no temporary traffic channelization or marking within the
intersection itself has been done. He said that since Christmas, there have been three accidents at the intersection
and tonight there was an accident with personal injury. Mr. Thomas inquired if VDOT had a schedule on what
is going to occur there, and if there is some way to get the contractor back to place temporary traffic controls for
traffic channelization and/or some danger warning.
Mr. Wyatt replied that this intersection is a part of the Tasker Drive improvement project which
is scheduled to be completed this Spring. Mr. Wyatt said that he would get in touch with VDOT's project
manager and report back to the Commission.
Discussion Regarding Telecommunication Towers
Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) has been
discussing this item to become educated on the technology and to come up with a proposed approach. Mr. Wyatt
said that the proposed approach from the DRRS is to create a new subsection for commercial telecommunication
facilities that would be within Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, and includes a statement of intent.
He said that a conditional use permit would be required before the tower could be sited anywhere and this
requirement would not be zoning specific. He said that several other issues were raised and discussed by the
DRRS, including 1) prohibiting certain types of towers --it seems to be more desirable to require a monopole
tower construction as opposed to the lattice construction; 2) to establish a height limitation for the towers
themselves and then to allow the heights to increase if there was "co -location;" 3) requiring accessory structures
to be screened and set back; 4) requiring some type of bonding to remove abandoned towers; 4) establishing
criteria to consider local zoning issues, land use patterns, viewsheds, and historic properties when doing siting.
0
The idea of establishing a telecommunications overlay zone, which would prohibit towers in
certain areas, was raised. It was noted that the Federal Telecommunications Act was more of an inclusionary
requirement rather than an exclusionary requirement; and localities may create language to help mitigate some
of the problems, but the language cannot be exclusionary in practice and thereby exclude a particular area from
service. It was suggested that a basic statement of intent be written designating areas that the County would
discourage the construction of towers.
The Commission felt that utilization of existing structures, as well as collocation of towers,
should be encouraged by way of incentives. Mr. DiBenedetto stated that one of the things considered by the City
when reviewing requests for telecommunication towers is whether or not the company has attempted to find
another tower on which to locate their antennae. He said that if they want a tower of their own, the City will
require that it be accessible to other people who want to share it. Mr. DiBenedetto added that the City's
requirements also include height limitations; however, the lower the tower height, the more towers are needed to
cover an area.
Commissioners discussed whether or not to allow the towers as a by -right use in the B2 and B3
areas. It was felt it would be better to require a conditional use permit which would allow the opportunity to
negotiate the location of a site, particularly in critical areas; for example, if the site was adjacent to a residential
neighborhood.
Another issue raised was the potential of collapsing towers falling on neighboring properties
and whether setbacks were needed to accommodate that potential. Staff noted that information received by a
representative of one of the telecommunications companies was that modern-day towers are now engineered so
that if there is a collapse of the structure, it will collapse on itself rather than on its side, like a tree. Staff noted
that Personal Communication Service Companies think the setback standard is excessive.
Chairman DeHaven requested that the staff draft language for the Commission's review for the
Commission's February 19th meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
7:50 p.m.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed March 6, 1997)
Application newly submitted.
REZONINGS:
Clay DeGrange Estate
Z #006-96)
Gainesboro 51.0540 acres from RA to B2
ation:
F
N.W. uadrant of Rt. SOW/ Rt. 37 Intersection
mitted:
10/18/96
PC Review:
11/06/96 tabled; 1-15-97 recommended approval
BOS Review:
02/12/97 - Approved, contingent on written agreement between
FCSA and developer; & plat showing metes & bounds.
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Dominion Knolls (MDP #001-97)ff04/O9/9m7-
76 SF Detached Zero Lot Line Homes
on 20.278 acres (RP)
Location:
of Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322) & Baker Lane (Rt. 1200)
Submitted:
PC Review:
ecommended approval
BOS Review:
ntative/ scheduled
SUBDIVISIONS:
The Summit; Section 1-B
(SUB #001-97) (No MDP)
Gainesboro Subd. of 2.9 acres into 4 lots (R5)
Location:
Corner of Lakeview Dr. & South Lakeview Drive
PC Review:
02/19/97 - recommended a roval
BOS Review:
03/12/97
Admin. A roved:
Pendin
Hill Valley, Sect. 1 thr. 4
(SUB #009-96)
Stonewall 49 SF Detached Cluster Lots on
1 26.1232 acres (RP)
Location:
So. of Shenandoah Hills on west side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656)
Submitted:
11/22/96
MDP #001-%:
Approved on 09/27/96
Admin. Approved:
02/27/97
Greenwood Road
(SUB #007-95)
Shawnee Subdivision of 2.837 ac. into five lots
(RP)
Location:
W. Side of Greenwood Rd (Rt. 656) approx. 1,400' north of Senseny
Rd. Rt. 657) intersection
Submitted:
07/22/96
PC Review:
08/21/96 - Recommended Approval
BOS Review:
09/11/96 - Approved
Admin. Approval:
L12/27/96 - Plats signed; awaiting copy of recorded plat
Valley Mill Estates (SUB)
Stonewall 21 SF Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
No. Side of Valley Mill Rd. & East of Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
10/23/95
MDP #001-95
Approved 04/26/95
Pending Admin. A roval:
Awaiting bonding, signed plats, & deed of dedication
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek
1 2 M1 Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP #003-87
Approved 07/08/87
Pending Admin. A roval
Awaitingsigned lats.
RT&T Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek 1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2)
Location:
Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.)
Submitted:
05/17/95
MDP #003-91
Approved 07/10/91
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting submission of si ed plat & deed of dedication
Briarwood Estates (SUB)
Stonewall 20 SF Det. Trad. Lots (RP)
Location:
Greenwood Rd.
Submitted:
01/03/94
MDP #005-93
Approved 12/8/93
Pending Admin. Approval:
Being held atapplicant's request.
Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB)
Shawnee
230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/13/90 - a roved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of ded., letter of credit, and signed plat
Harry Stimpson (SUB)
O uon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
10/26/94 - a roved
Pending Admin. A royal:
Aw dtin signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Rite-Aid (SP #006-97)
Gainesboro Mfg. & Distribution Facility on 30.00
acre site (Ml)
Location:
Welltown Pike (Rt. 661)
Submitted:
02/18/97
Approved:
LPending
Agape Christian Fellowship
Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97)
Shawnee Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be
developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch .
Submitted:
02/12/97
Approved:
Pending
Rose Memorial Foundation
(SP #004-97)
Stonewall
Renovation of existing residence for an
1 adult care facility; 3.292 ac. site (RP)
Location:
549 Valley Mill Road
Submitted:
02/11/97
Approved:
Pending
Waffle House Restaurant
(SP #003-97)
Shawnee
1
1,659 sq.ft. restaurant on 0.37 ac. site
(B2)
Location:
980 Millwood Pike (Intersection of Rt. 522 & 50)
Submitted:
01/21/97
Approved:
Pending
Valley Proteins, Inc.
(SP #002-97)
Gainesboro
16,000 sq. ft. office bldg. on a 165 ac.
1 site (M2)
Location:
Intersection of Routes 608 and 679
Submitted:
01/15/97
Approved:
Pending
The Home Plate, Inc.
(SP #001-97)
Opequon
50,000 sq. ft. recreational facility on
1.1478 ac. site (112)
Location:
Corner of Warrior Rd. & Ivory Dr. in Stephens City
Submitted:
01/06/97
Approved:
Pending
[ Carriebrooke (SP #057-96)
Shawnee
Offices on 2.5487 acres (112)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642 south of I-81/37/642 interchange
Submitted:
12/26/96
Approved:
Pence
Shenandoah Bldg. Supply
(SP #056-96)
Gainesboro
Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml)
Location:
195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park)
Submitted:
12/16/96
Approved:
Pend
ALC, Inc. (Eastgate Comm.
Cntr. (SP #055-96)
Shawnee
1. Mfg./Office on 3.96 ac. of a 20.7559
ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
Eastgate Dr., Eastgate Commerce Center (off Rt. 642)
Submitted:
12/12/96
Approved:
02/20/97
Virginia Apple Storage
(SP #050-96)
Shawnee Warehousing on 10.2059 acres (M1)
Location:
Southeast comer of Victory Lane (Rt. 728) & Independence Drive at
Westview Business Center
Submitted:
11/06/96
Approved:
Pending
James Wood H. S. Athletic Fields
(SP #047-96)
Gainesboro
New baseball stadium, softball field,
1 multi-purpose field (RA)
Location:
161 Apple Pie Ride Road
Submitted:
10/21/96
Approved:
03/04/97
Toan & Assoc. (SP #046-96)
Gainesboro
Kraft warehouse addition; 4.6 ac. of
13.8 ac. tract (Ml)
Location:
360 McGhee Road
Submitted:
10/18/96
Approved:
Pending
Winchester 84 Lumber
(SP #045-96)
Stonewall
Storage Shed; 1.19 ac. of a 4.98 ac.
tract disturbed (B2)
Location:
Rt. 839
Submitted:
10/14/96
Approved:
Pendin
Miller Milling East Co.
(SP #043-96)
Stonewall
Bldg. Addition (mill) on 0.91 ac. of a
1 82.136 ac. parcel (Ml)
Location:
302 Park Center Drive; Fort Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
09/23/96
Approved:
Pending
Frederick Veterinary Hospital (SP
#037-96)
Opequon
Veterinary Hospital on .50 ac. of a 2.05
1 ac. site (RP)
Location:
East side of A for Rd (Rt. 642); so. of Westmoreland Dr
Submitted:
08/21/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube
Service (SP #030-96)
equon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive -
Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2)
[1512
Location:
Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
Flying J Travel Plaza (SP #026 -Stonewall
96)
Back Creek
Travel Plaza on 15 acres (B3)
Location:
S.W. corner of the intersection of I-81 & Rt. 669
Submitted:
05/23/96
Approved:
Pence
Cedar Creek Center (SP #025-96)
Back Creek
Museum on 0.485 ac. of a 3.210 acre
arcel (Bl)
Location:
8437 Valley Pike (Rt. 11), Middletown
Submitted:
05/16/96
Approved:
Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP
#022-96)
Gainesboro
Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a
0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Dr. Raymond Fish (SP #023-96)E05/O9/96
Mini-Golf Facility on 5,000 sq. ft. of a
16 acre parcel (B2)
Location:
er of 1-81/Hopewell Rd. Intersection
Submitted:
A roved:
American Legion Post #021 (SP
#018-96)
Stonewall
Addition to lodge building on 3.4255
acre site (112)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pending
D.K. Erectors & Maintenance,
Inc. (SP #051-95)
Gainesboro
Indust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 -
1 acre site (M2)
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
12/28/95
Approved:
Pending
Wheatlands Wastewater Facility
(SP #047-89)
Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (115)
Location:
So. West of Double Tollgate; ad'. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
Being held at applicant's request.
Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall
I Ml Use on 11 Ac. (Ml)
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Being held atapplicant's request.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
John D. Powell (Powell's
Plumbing) (CUP #005-97)
Shawnee
Off -Premise Business Sign (RA)
Location:
120 Waterloo Court (off Rt. 50 East)
Submitted:
02/07/97
PC Review:
03/05/97 -recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/09/97 - tentatively scheduled
David & Debbie Bragg
(CUP #006-97)
Stonewall
Antique Shop (RA)
Location:
511 Redbud Run (Rt. 661)
Submitted:
02/07/97
PC Review:
03/05/97 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/09/97 - tentatively scheduled
Sidney A. Reyes (CUP #00497)
Gainesboro
Animal Boarding (RA)
Photography Portrait Studio (RA)
Location:
350 Redland Road, Cross Junction
Submitted:
01/31/97
PC Review:
03/05/97 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/09/97 - tentatively scheduled
Marietta & Kim Walls
(CUP #003-97)
Back Creek
Animal Boarding (RA)
Location:
1207 Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622)
Submitted •
01/29/97
PC Review:
03/05/97 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/09/97 - tentatively scheduled
Joseph W. EdmistonBack
(CUP #002-97)
Creek [Dog Kennel (non -boarding) (RA)
Location:
1293 Hollow Rd. (Rt. 707), Lake Isaac Est., Sec. IV, Lot 6;
Submitted:
01/28/97
PC Review:
03/05/97 - recommended denial
BOS Review:
04/09/97 - tentative! scheduled
Derek M. Heishman
(CUP #001-97)
Back Creek
I
Automobile repair w/o body repair
(RA)
Location:
187 Middle Lane, Gore
Submitted: il
01/21/97
PC Review:
03/05/97 - recommended approval
04/09/97 - tentatively scheduled
BOS Review:
VARIANCES:
F . ;.f;:
�,'�
Caxroli'�Cogsfruck�oa Co ': i,
: {:. r; ;: ; .f;
`'.%`�:';• i`/� ; . "v
Gaiaesl ota; I `23:1 side `.d (n0i 23 4 id�e' d: fsd:� f
Location:
1252 Apple Pie Ridge Rd.; 5 mi. no. of intersection w/ Rt. 522.
Submitted:
02/21/97
BZA Review:
03/18/97
.... . .. ...... . . . . . . . .
�'Sio'ii� aj �,•' ,i' : �: �g � �� ;� . ,� .
41001:97
'..siie"v : e : IA
Location: 1530 Rest Church Rd.; So.West quadrant of I-81 & Rt. 669
Submitted: 02/20/97
BZA Review: 03/18/97
10
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director k
RE: Commercial Telecommunication Facility Amendment
DATE: March 5, 1997
During the February 19, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented draft language which
defined a conditional use permit process for the development of commercial telecommunication
facilities. Representatives of Shentel were present during the meeting to answer questions and
critique the proposed language. The Planning Commission felt that the overall concept presented
by staff was adequate; however, the commission asked that staff provide information pertaining
to several items of concern. The Planning Commission directed staff to discuss these issues with
the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC), and forward an edited version of
the draft language for further deliberation.
The DRRC considered the proposed draft during their regular meeting on February 27, 1997.
Representatives of Shentel were present at this meeting, as were five members of the Planning
Commission. The items identified during the February 19, 1997 meeting were discussed at
length, resulting in the elimination of five items of information required of the applicant as part
of Section 165-48.6(A), the revision of language associated with four standards required for new
tower construction as part of Section 165-48.6(B), the addition of language requiring the removal
of towers that become abandoned and the addition of new definitions. This revision was amenable
to the members of the DRRC, the representatives of Shentel, and the members of the Planning
Commission; therefore, staff was directed to advertise the amended language as a public hearing.
Included with this memorandum are the proposed amendments for consideration by the Planning
Commission. Staff asks that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation that will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution on April 9, 1997.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ARTICLE XXI Definitions
165-145. Definitions and word usage.
Commercial Telecommunication Facility - a structure including the tower, antennas, panels,
microwave dishes, receiving dishes, equipment building, other transmitting and receiving
components, and other accessory structures, used for the wireless electromagnetic transmission
of information, excluding structures utilized as satellite earth stations and structures utilized for
amateur or recreational purposes such as ham radio or citizen band radio.
Search Area - a geographic area in which a commercial telecommunication facility site may be
located that would satisfactorily cover a targeted area and/or hand-off with its neighboring sites.
Scenic Area - an open area, the natural features of which are visually significant or geologically
or botanically unique.
ARTICLE IV Supplementary Use Regulations
165-24 Height Limitations; Exceptions
B(1) The maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following:
(j) Radio and television transmission towers and commercial telecommunication
facilities.
165-48.6 Commercial Telecommunication Facilities
The intent of this Section is to ensure that the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities
occurs through the conditional use permit public hearing process defined in Article III of this
Chapter. The siting of commercial telecommunication facilities is permitted within the zoning
districts specified in this Chapter, provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic
areas, and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted.
A. Information required as part of the Conditional Use Permit Application shall include, but
not be limited to the following:
1) A map depicting the search area used in siting each proposed commercial
telecommunication facility.
Commercial Telecommunication Facility Amendment
Page -2-
2) Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication facility
infrastructure within a proposed search area.
3) Information demonstrating that the commercial telecommunication facility is in
compliance with the Federal Communication Commissions established ANSI/IEEE
standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency radiation.
4) Information delineating procedures for removal of the commercial
telecommunication facility within one year of the abandonment of operation.
B. The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial
telecommunication facility is sited, in order to promote orderly economic development and
mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties:
1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for
commercial telecommunication facilities as required by Section 165-24(6) of this
Chapter if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact.
Commercial telecommunication facilities affixed to existing structures shall be
exempt from setback requirements, provided that they are located no closer to the
adjoining property line than the existing structure.
2) yMonopole type construction shall a required for new commercial
telecommunication tower orated = e Urban Development Area erre►
pro�{ } roperties that are identified hisca sites a Tanning Commission ma
>s rtacetype cons - con
-en. low ter. " at me located i a -other
o ty. �ttS ,U' a•,re
3) Advertising shall be prohibited on commercial telecommunication facilities except
for signage providing ownership identification and emergency information. No
more than two signs shall be permitted. Such signs shall be limited to 1.5 square
feet in area and shall be posted no higher than ten feet above grade.
4) When lighting is required on commercial telecommunication facility towers, dual
lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and
nighttime red pulsating lighting, unless otherwise mandated by the Federal
Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe
lighting shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring
properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures operated in
conjunction with commercial telecommunication facility towers shall utilize
infrared lighting and motion detector lighting to prevent continuous illumination.
Commercial Telecommunication Facility Amendment
Page -3-
5) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be constructed with materials of a
galvanized finish or painted a non -contrasting blue or gray unless otherwise
mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications
Commission.
6) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be adequately enclosed to prevent
access by persons other than employees of the service provider. Appropriate
landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure that equipment
buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties,
roads, or other right-of-ways.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director
RE: No Through Truck Traffic Policy for Tasker Drive
DATE: February 26, 1997
Staff presented a request to the Transportation Committee during their March 4, 1997 meeting to
consider the above referenced policy. Staff has identified a potential concern with the opening
of Tasker Drive, in that tractor -trailer truck traffic utilizing the East Gate Commerce Center will
have direct access to Interstate 81 and Route 37. The Tasker Drive relocation project is
anticipated to be complete in the spring of 1997. This project relocates a segment of Macedonia
Church Road (old Route 642) from the intersection with Aylor Road (Route 647) to Front Royal
Pike (Route 522 South). Staff feels that this is undesirable for several reasons:
• Tasker Drive contains several residential lots that have existing frontage and individual
access.
• Tasker Drive is built to current major collector road standards from Front Royal Pike to
Aylor Road; however, the remaining segment from Aylor Road to Route 37 was
constructed many years ago and to a lesser standard.
• Front Royal Pike has been improved to a four -lane, 55 -mph primary arterial road standard
and is designed to accommodate truck traffic.
• Access to Interstate 81 is currently available for northbound tractor -trailer truck traffic via
Front Royal Pike to Exit 313. Access to the Inland Port and Interstate 66 is available for
southbound tractor -trailer truck traffic via Interstate 81, Fairfax Pike (Route 277), and
Front Royal Pike.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Tasker Drive Memo
Page -2-
Several steps have to occur before a road is posted for no through truck traffic. The first step
involves the adoption of a resolution by the Board of Supervisors through a public hearing process
requesting the implementation of this policy. Following the adoption of this resolution, the
VDOT Resident Engineer will program a detailed study of the road segment to determine if
qualifying criteria warrants the implementation of this policy. The findings of this study are then
presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board who approve or deny the request.
The Transportation Committee felt that it would be appropriate to limit through truck traffic on
Tasker Drive. The committee expressed concerns regarding the ability to enforce this policy, and
the potential impact that this policy would have on specific types of trucks such as construction
vehicles and priority mail couriers. The Transportation Committee recommended unanimous
approval of this policy and directed staff to address these concerns during presentations to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Staff will provide a map depicting the proposed
road segment and land use within this area during the Planning Commission meeting. Staff asks
that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final
resolution.