PC 07-21-21 Meeting Agenda1.Call to Order
2.Adoption of Agenda – Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting.
3.Meeting Minutes
3.A.June 2, 2021 Meeting Minutes
3.B.June 16, 2021 Meeting Minutes
4.Committee Reports
5.Citizen Comments
6.Information/Discussion Items
6.A.Ordinance Amendment for Opaque Fencing Requirements (Waiver) - (Mr.
Klein)
Ordinance Amendment-Discussion to modify requirements for “opaque fence”
to allow chain link fence with slats to satisfy screening requirements for certain
uses and to fulfill zoning district buffer screening requirements where a waiver
may be granted by the Board of Supervisors.
6.B.Ordinance Amendment for Master Development Plans (Approval
Process) - (Mr. Klein)
Ordinance Amendment-Discussion on a request to remove public meeting
requirements/presentation to the Planning Commission and Board of
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2021
7:00 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PC07-21-21MinutesJune2.pdf
PC07-21-21MinutesJune16.pdf
PC07-21-21OAOpaqueFencingRequirementsWaiver.pdf
1
Supervisors for Master Development (MDP).
7.Other
7.A.Current Planning Applications
8.Adjourn
PC07-21-21OA MasterDevelopmentPlans.pdf
2
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: July 21, 2021
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: June 2, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
PC07-21-21MinutesJune2.pdf
3
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3814
Minutes of June 2, 2021
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on June 2, 2021.
PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S.
Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; H.
Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District; Rhodes Marston, Back Creek
District; John F. Jewell, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kathleen Dawson,
Red Bud District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Roderick
B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director; Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; John A.
Bishop, Assistant Director Transportation; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kenney called the June 2, 2021 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Manuel
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Dawson and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes from the May 5, 2021 and May 19, 2021
meetings.
-------------
4
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3815
Minutes of June 2, 2021
COMMITTEES
Transportation Committee – Mtg. 05/24/21
Commissioner Oates reported the Committee reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Update
(Transportation Section) and sent it on to the CPPC; next month they will be looking at maps and text
updates. The Committee also received an update on the Crossover Boulevard project that goes between
the Airport and Pleasant Valley, paving operations are complete and minor things are also being
completed. He noted this project remains ahead of schedule.
Conservation Easement Authority – Mtg. 05/27/21
Commissioner Triplett reported the Authority held its annual organizational activities
with the election of officers, the adoption of the bylaws, and the adoption of meeting minutes.
City of Winchester – Mtg. 06/01/21
Commissioner Tagnesi, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the
Commissioner discussed two CUPs on short term rentals and an Ordinance for new regulations on home
share and short term rentals.
Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Stegmaier expressed thanks to the many Shawnee residents who came out to
share their concerns on the rezoning for One Logistics. He stated he hopes no one attending wants to
burden the residents with the heavy traffic and unsafe conditions this project will generate.
Announcements
Chairman Kenney shared this will be Commissioner Marstons last meeting and expressed
his gratitude for his service to the community. He noted, Commissioner Jewell will now be the liaison for
Frederick Water.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. Mr.
William Melvin, President of the Raven Pointe Homeowners’ Association came forward and read a
statement on behalf of the association:
Two years ago, the Raven Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc. (RPHOA), a community
of 120 homes filed a Statement in re. APPLICATION #03-18, CARPERS VALLEY INDUSTRIAL
PARK voicing our community's objections based on traffic abatement issues. Raven Wing Homeowners
Association, Inc., representing approximately 250 additional homes joined us in opposition. Both of our
developments are adjacent to the property in question, across Rt. 50 at Inverlee Drive, soon to be joined
5
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3816
Minutes of June 2, 2021
by a new community, Raven Oaks, with housing construction underway for an additional 144
homeowners. The current Rezoning Application, submitted by Wickshire Industrial LLC, presents far
more serious traffic abatement concerns, which are now shared by the Staff of the Planning Commission,
as outlined in the Executive Summary of its Staff Report dated May 20, 2021.
In addition, VDOT has expressed significant concern as outlined in their comments
contained in the Staff Report. According to VDOT, the function of the Exit 313 interchange will be
negatively impacted during the peak times that were studied. Given that the pending improvements to
Exit 313 by VDOT include minimal capacity improvements, these interchange improvements will not
alleviate the impacts from this development.
RPHOA objects to this new Rezoning Application and requests that the Application be
denied. In addition to the issues raised by the Planning Commission staff and VDOT, the Application is
supported by a traffic impact analysis that is materially flawed, incomplete, and relies on dated real-time
information. In support of the requested rezoning, the Applicant also submitted a VDOT Signal
Justification Report (SJR), dated January 21, 2021. The SJR is materially deficient, incomplete and dated
as well. Further, the Applicant's proffers would obligate the Board of Supervisors to potentially procure
rights of way on behalf of the Applicant for offsite improvements which would create the potential for the
site to develop without mitigating the transportation impacts addressed by the offsite road improvements
outlined in the proffers, according to the Staff Report. The requested rezoning is also inconsistent with
the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, as pointed out by the
Planning Commission staff. RPHOA is joined in its opposition to this Application by residents of the
Raven Wing and Crestleigh communities.
From the standpoint of our communities, the central problem posed by the proposed development of One Logistics Park is that the new road proposed as an extension of Coverstone Drive would empty out onto Rt. 50 at Inverlee Way, and the fact that the land is intended to be developed largely as a major truck distribution center. If allowed, the project would have a substantial negative impact on our communities and present several public safety concerns, even with the proposed installation of traffic signals and added turn lanes at Rt. 50/1nverlee Way.
The Application seeks a change in land use for the 277 acre site to M-1 and B-2 rezoning
to accommodate approximately 3 million square feet of general industrial uses. The One Logistics Park
project is designed to establish several interconnected commercial and light industrial Land Bays. With
multiple distribution centers planned for commercial deliveries and offloading, the estimated traffic on an
extended Coverstone Drive of 10,000 vehicles per day means that trucks, especially tractor trailers will be
entering and leaving Coverstone all day and all night, disrupting the night rest hours of our residents at a
minimum. In addition, the corner of Inverlee and Rt. 50 is a drop off point for private school busses and
public school busses utilize Inverlee as well. Truck traffic coming down the hill of the proposed
Coverstone extension with a planned speed limit of 40 mph, creates a major safety hazard, especially if
the vehicle is trying to "make the light". It will also provide a cut-through alternative route from traffic on
Rt. 522 to Rt. 50 at Inverlee and beyond to Senseny Road and that burden has been underestimated.
The VDOT SJR traffic analysis excludes the impact of the new Raven Oaks development, also adjacent to the project across Rt. 50 which is now under construction and, when complete, will add upwards of 280 additional vehicles to the Inverlee/Rt. 50 intersection each day. The analysis also fails to take into account the likelihood that more vehicles, including trucks will use Inverlee, Kinross, Dewberry, Huntersridge/Fairfield, and Crestleigh to access Senseny Road and Rt. 7.
6
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3817
Minutes of June 2, 2021
It has already been established that the residents along Crestleigh have experienced several bad accidents and near misses from speeding vehicles and their requests for relief to VDOT over the last several years have been denied. This will only make matters worse. The traffic analysis erroneously assumes that schools will continue with remote learning due to Covid and ignores reality that schools will be open full-time in the Fall, From p, 3 of the VDOT SUR traffic analysis.
• For the subject rezoning application review in 2020, with school out and COVID -19 conditions impacting travel activities, no new counts were required.
• As for additional major omissions, see p. 4 of the VDOT SJR traffic analysis.
• Localized development impacts of the FBI campus, Navy Federal Credit Union offices and Custer Avenue commercial uses were not included in the warrant study.
• The VDOT SUR submission relies on data from 2008. From p. 3:
Summary of Traffic Count Source:
Peak period turning movement counts were collected by VDOT to the east at the Millwood Pike/Sulphur Springs Road (Va. Rte. 655) intersection as part of the intersection improvement project in 2017. The 12-hour counts were utilized to determine Millwood Pike link volumes and were factored for turns at Inverlee Way based on 2008 traffic counts. For the subject rezoning application review in 2020, with school out and COVID -19 conditions impacting travel activities, no new counts were required. The derivation of the traffic volumes is detailed in the signal warrant study, as attached.
VDOT published Daily trips for Millwood Pike ADT was 19,000 VPD in 2019. VDOT published ADT for Route 1520 (Inverlee Way) north of Route 50-17 is 670 VPD from 2008 published counts. Based on the 2008 counts/forecasts used for the Governors Hill rezoning the link volume with a K value of O. 10 translate to approximately 1, 700 VPD, so the turning peak hour counts were used as the base to factor the 13-hour 'base' volume at Inverlee Way for the side street.
Use of modeling is no substitute for the realities on the ground. A further aggravating
circumstance to the proposed Coverstone extension is the planned Super Convenience Market/Gas
Station near the proposed intersection with Rt. 50 at Inverlee. With projected vehicle traffic entering and
exiting the proposed Coverstone extension, it would dramatically compound the dangers posed to public
safety. No consideration was given in the Application for the likelihood that our neighborhood children
who frequently ride their bicycles around our developments, and even adults, will attempt to navigate Rt.
50 in order to purchase candy or other convenience store items. Currently, there is no such store in close
proximity. This public safety hazard, with trucks entering and exiting the proposed Coverstone extension,
could prove disastrous. It is also of critical importance that no consideration has been given to an
alternative plan whereby Coverstone Drive would be linked to the planned extension of Pendleton Drive,
parallel to the Airport so as to circle the east side of the project and exit opposite of Sulphur Springs Road
which already has a traffic signal and an upgraded intersection. At a minimum, the Board should table the
One Logistics Park Application until further study and analysis of the Sulphur Springs alternative is
completed with updated and realistic traffic analyses. The proposed One Logistics Park project represents
a major shift in the land use planning adjacent to our communities. It will negatively impact our quality
of life and serve no useful purpose to the County in terms of revenue generation. The changed zoning
would substantially reduce the tax revenues that would otherwise be gained by the County with a broader
residential/commercial mix.
There is nothing to be gained by the County or our communities with this project and
much that we both can lose. We respectfully request that the Rezoning Application be denied.
7
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3818
Minutes of June 2, 2021
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments
portion of the meeting.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #02-21 for Greystone Properties, LLC, and White Properties, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, Inc., to rezone 119.27 acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District to
the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers, and 238.37 acres from the R4 (Residential
Planned Community) District to the RA (Rural Areas) District with proffers, totaling 357.64 acres.
The properties are located at 964 Cedar Creek Grade, 740 Merrimans Lane, 750 Merrimans Lane,
and 760 Merrimans Lane in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and are identified by Property
Identification Numbers 53-A-90, 53-A-91, 53-A-92, 53-A-92A, 53-A-92B, 53-3-A, and 63-A-2A.
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Manuel and Commissioner Mohn would abstain from all discussion on
this item for a possible conflict of interest.
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, reported this is a proposal to rezone 119.27 acres
of land zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with proffers to the RP (Residential
Performance) District with proffers to develop an age restricted community, and 238.37 acres zoned R4
District with proffers to the RA (Rural Areas) District with proffers, for a total of 357.64 acres. She
continued, the properties are located east of Route 37 and Merriman’s Lane (Route 621), north of Cedar
Creek Grade (Route 622), south and west of the City of Winchester, in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District. Ms. Perkins noted, the subject properties are part of the original Willow Run development which
was approved in 2001 (revised in 2009 and 2012); Rezoning #21-06 was approved for up to 1,390
residential units and 32.4 acres for commercial uses. Ms. Perkins explained, the site is located within the
limits of the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan
identifies the site with commercial and residential land use designations which is consistent with the
current zoning. She noted, the Plan calls for the residential areas to develop with single family detached
and small lot units with a density of four units per acre.
Ms. Perkins reported, the transportation network identified in the Comprehensive Plan
calls for the extension of Jubal Early Drive as an east/west through road and the construction of a new
interchange at Route 37. She continued, a public major collector road is planned to facilitate traffic
movement in a north-south direction to provide a connection between Jubal Early Drive and Cedar Creek
Grade; alternative modes of transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, an interconnected
system of multi-purpose trails and sidewalks are planned. She shared, with this proposed rezoning:
• 119.27 acres requested to be rezoned from the R4 District to the RP District:
o Maximum of 300 age-restricted dwelling units on their properties which
shall be limited to single-family small lot units.
o Request to utilize a complete network of private streets with a gated
access on to Cedar Creek Grade (BOS waiver required).
o Monetary proffer of $308/unit– consistent with the Capital Impact Model
o Residential uses in this area are supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
8
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3819
Minutes of June 2, 2021
• 238 acres requested to be rezoned from the R4 District to the RA District:
o Current zoning of this area for residential and commercial uses –
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; rezoning the site to the RA
District would be inconsistent with the Plan.
o RA Zoning could allow for up to 47 by-right single-family dwellings.
o Applicant has proffered $9,078/unit – Capital Impact Model identifies an
impact of $22,043/unit on county facilities.
o Potential RA lots could impact the ability to construct Jubal Early Drive
and the planned north south connector.
John A. Bishop, Assistant Director Transportation, reported the current proffers provide:
• Construction of the comprehensive planned extension of Jubal Early Drive with
Merrimans Lane realignment
• Construction of a new interchange with Route 37
• Public north/south connector roadway from future Jubal Early Drive extension to
Cedar Creek Grade
• Bicycle and pedestrian amenities throughout the development
Mr. Bishop noted, the proposed proffers trim back on the existing proffers a bit:
• Access entirely from Cedar Creek Grade
• Proffered right-of-way only for 25 years for future Jubal Early Drive and
Merrimans Lane realignment on the proposed RA parcel
• Proffered right-of-way for Jubal Early Drive across the parcels proposed for RP
zoning
• Creates a private connection not Cedar Creek Grade in the location of the former
public north/south connection from future Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek
Grade
• Do not provide a public system of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
Mr. Bishop shared a map of the proposed zoning and the right-of-way as mentioned. He
explained with an exhibit the Cedar Creek Grade improvements for this project. Commissioner Thomas
commented, the current rezoning is based on having approximately 1,400 residences, and that would
mean one or two schools needing to be built to accommodate this; now going to 300 age restricted houses
and 47 RA lots, we are looking at a significant reduction in traffic and students. He inquired, not having
the Jubal Early Drive extension and the Merrimans Lane extension, how detrimental it is since there
would be a significant reduction in traffic. Mr. Bishop explained, to properly answer we would need to
run it through the regional model; regarding Jubal Early Drive itself, there is the right-of-way for 25
years. He continued, it is a regional in nature improvement, so whether this development was happening
at all we would still be calling for that improvement and it was on the Comprehensive Plan prior to the
Willow Run rezoning. Commissioner Thomas stated that we need to keep the right-of-way and the ability
to build the roads through there and losing the right-of-way for Jubal Early Drive is a big concern. Mr.
Bishop commented yes, it would be very concerning in losing the ability to do that project.
Chairman Kenney inquired about the cost of the Merrimans Lane and Route 37 overpass
at the Rock Harbor Golf course entry and noted that was quite a concerted effort. Mr. Bishop noted it
certainly was and there is an open permit on that project. He continued, there was an approved design
and Jubal Early Drive itself was virtually an approved design with the exception of a small segment;
revenue sharing applications had been done along with state funds, unfortunately when it came time to
9
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3820
Minutes of June 2, 2021
move forward there were multiple property owners involved and it was not able to come together. He
noted, there was a lot of effort amongst the Applicant and those involved. Chairman Kenney asked if
there were agreements with water and sewer in the past and access across Merrimans Lane. Mr. Bishop
stated, there was work of that type done and Mr. Evan Wyatt can elaborate on that.
Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering Inc. came forward on behalf of the Applicant.
He began, in the 2007 rezoning everything discussed was a proffered item; a proffered development plan;
a proffered generalized development plan; and proffered community design modifications. He continued,
that is an important thing to recognize, once a project is rezoned, in order to develop the project moving
forward, the construction plans that come forward for approval have to substantially conform to the GDP,
to the Community design modifications and so forth. Mr. Wyatt explained, once this project went
through entitlement, which was during the boom time then we went through the recession so then it just
sat there for a while; during that time the County, VDOT, and the developers tried very hard to preserve
the Jubal Early Drive construction project. Since then, the revenue sharing funds have been deallocated
so there is no financial method to build the road. He continued, it is also important to note, the piece that
was originally owned by Miller and Smith is now owned by White Family Properties; and the property is
currently used for agriculture use and open space. He noted, they are not developers, nor do they wish to
be. Mr. Wyatt stated, the owners of the Greystone portion wish to develop as a mixed use both non-age
restricted and age restricted project. In regards to the Staff report which he feels is very positive, when
reviewing the impacts of this proposal there were no issues of concern with the piece of property to be
developed if approved. He noted, there was a lot of time spent with VDOT and Transportation on a
solution that was acceptable for Cedar Creek Grade and all of that is proffered. Another point with this
portion of the property is the portion of Jubal Early Drive is being dedicated to the County along with the
subdivision plats that would be prepared for the age restricted project and the reason it is being dedicated
outright to the County is because since this is a development project if you do not do it at this point in
time that would be a lost opportunity. He explained, typically when we look at a rezoning from a project
that was previously rezoned, we look at a comparative analysis, resulting in significant reduction of
impacts. He noted, if the County does rezone this back to RA where is the risk to the County; the
Applicant made sure it was proffered prohibiting the use of TDRs in the 238 acres. Regarding the
reservation of the ROW, the Applicant thought to be appropriate and fair to the County, if the property
goes back to agricultural use there is an opportunity for the ROW to become dedicated to the County at
no cost and they felt a 20 year window was sufficient and fair; Staff requested it be increased a bit and
the property owners agreed to 25 years.
Commissioner Marston asked how close the Cedar Creek Grade intersection will be to
the Harvest Ridge entrance. Mr. Wyatt commented, VDOT has requested longer turn lanes and tapered
lanes; the primary concern with the entrance coming onto Cedar Creek Grade is the side streets warrants
would not meet what is required for a traffic light. He continued, the Applicant, VDOT, and the City of
Winchester have worked to create an area where traffic can turn out of their project to a lane that is
protected then ultimately merge into the thru lane towards Valley Avenue.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the left turn lane has a raised median and if it will be
raised on both sides of the car. Mr. Wyatt responded it will be parallel with the east bound traffic into the
City of Winchester. Commissioner Thomas commented so westbound traffic will be turning in the lane.
Mr. Wyatt stated no because there will be striping and extended median. Commissioner Thomas asked if
there is a chance to extend the ROW for Jubal Early Drive to 30 or 35 years. Mr. Wyatt commented, a
discussion was had with the White Family, and they reluctantly agreed to the 25 years.
Chairman Kenney commented, this is going to be a gated community which requires a
Board of Supervisors waiver; what happens if years down the road with the ROW in place and the White
Family property is sold or developed and the gated community would be opened up. Mr. Wyatt
10
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3821
Minutes of June 2, 2021
explained, the only opportunity for something different to happen is for another development group to
come in and negotiate and purchase the property; that is possibly where the Comprehensive Plan may be
revisited. He continued, regarding the gated community and age restricted projects desire to have a gated
community with a complete system of private streets which requires a waiver; they have proffered to do
certain things if the waiver is granted. Chairman Kenney asked where the access would be to the 238
acres. Mr. Wyatt noted access is along Merrimans Lane and the developer would be responsible for
building the streets and entrance. Chairman Kenney asked if water and sewer was part of the original
rezoning across Merrimans Lane. Mr. Wyatt commented a lot of work was done with Frederick Water at
the time and an agreement was met on tap fees.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time.
Mr. David Williamson of the Gainesboro District came forward. He is an adjoining
property owner to the White’s property. He is in favor of this project and would like consideration in his
property at 277 Orchard Lane becoming RA from R4.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Dawson
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does recommend approval of Rezoning
#02-21 for Greystone Properties, LLC, and White Properties, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc.,
to rezone 119.27 acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District to the RP (Residential
Performance) District with proffers, and 238.37 acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community)
District to the RA (Rural Areas) District with proffers, totaling 357.64 acres. The properties are located at
964 Cedar Creek Grade, 740 Merrimans Lane, 750 Merrimans Lane, and 760 Merrimans Lane in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 53-A-90, 53-A-91,
53-A-92, 53-A-92A, 53-A-92B, 53-3-A, and 63-A-2A.
Yes: Triplett, Thomas, Marston, Jewell, Kozel, Cline, Molden, Morrison, Dawson
No: Oates, Kenney
Abstain: Mohn, Manuel
-------------
ACTION ITEM
Rezoning #01-21 for One Logistics Park Winchester, submitted by Gordon, to rezone 277.16+/-
acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community District to the B2 (General Business) and M1
(Light Industrial) Districts with proffers. The properties are located approximately one mile east of
I-81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50), east of Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) and
Coverstone Drive (Route 1538) and west of Arbor Court and Pendleton Drive in the Shawnee
Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-
A-84, 64-A-86, and 64-A-87.
Action – Recommend Approval
11
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3822
Minutes of June 2, 2021
Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible
conflict of interest.
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, reported this is a proposal to rezone six parcels
totaling 277.16 acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District to the B2 (General Business)
District and the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. She provided a history of this application:
the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this rezoning on March 17, 2021 and postponed the
application for 90 days; a Planning Commission work session was held on April 21, 2021 to further
discuss the application; following the work session, the Applicant submitted revised proffers dated May
18, 2021 seeking to address identified concerns. She presented a locations map of the property and noted,
the subject properties are part of the original Carpers Valley/Governors Hill rezoning which was approved
in 2005 (revised in 2009, 2013, and 2014); Rezoning #11-05 provided for 143 acres of commercial uses
and 550 residential units. Ms. Perkins shared, the total of 277.16+/- acres propose:
• 264.7 acres for industrial uses
• 12.5 acres for commercial uses at the intersection of Coverstone Drive and
Millwood Pike
Ms. Perkins noted, this rezoning eliminates the residential units previously approved.
She continued; the site is located within the limits of the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan.
The Plan identifies these properties with a commercial/transition and residential land use designation;
these designations are consistent with the current zoning. The site is also located within the Airport
Support Area. She concluded; the requested M1 District is generally inconsistent with the land uses
depicted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bishop reviewed the phases of the Coverstone Drive implementation: (note: Phase
order concerns have been eliminated)
• Phase I – Full four lane divided urban collector roadway section with trail from
Millwood to the southern boundary of Land Bay 3 to include signalization and
turn lane improvements.
• Phase II – Construction of two lane roadway from the southern property line of
Land Bay 3 to Pendleton Drive with a trail.
• Phase III – completion of two lane section from Pendleton to existing Coverstone
Drive with trail.
• Phase IV – Coverstone widening to four lanes once development will exceed
2,000,000 square feet or if projected vehicles per day south of Land Bay 3
exceeds 10,000 or if heavy vehicle traffic exceeds 800.
• Completion of two lane Pendleton Drive extension prior to issuance of first CO
in Phase B.
Mr. Bishop continued, the Western improvements are to be constructed with Coverstone
Phases 1-3 and with square footage in excess of 1,491,600. He noted, if warranted, signalization would
occur after Coverstone improvements are completed and adopted into the VDOT system, otherwise
$200,000 will go to the County. Mr. Bishop explained, offsite improvements that require right of way
12
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3823
Minutes of June 2, 2021
acquisition and cannot be privately obtained will not take place unless the Board of Supervisors acquires
the right of way. In the event the Board of Supervisors do not obtain the right of way, the Applicant will
provide the County with the cost to construct those improvements including acquisition cost. Mr. Bishop
shared Staff concerns and they do remain consistent: Lack of any proffer addressing VDOT concerns
raised regarding interchange impacts expected to cost as much as $60-80 million; Proffer 2.6.2b, the
timing of signalization (formerly signalization agreement) remains a concern; Proffer 2.7, Staff remains
concerned about the position the Board is put in regarding the dictation of the use of eminent domain to
implement developer proffers. He concluded; this rezoning is being presented as an action item and a
public hearing was held on March 17, 2021.
Commissioner Mohn inquired in regards to the HOA comments, there was a reference to
Coverstone Drive extending around to Sulfur Springs Road rather than coming out at Inverlee Way; did
the original rezoning of Governors Hill bring Coverstone Drive out at that intersection and it was a prior
revision to the proffers that the Board of Supervisors supported rather significantly and re-aligned that
intersection at Inverlee Way. Mr. Bishop commented that is correct, previously instead of hooking north
to meet Inverlee Way it continued around to meet Sulphur Springs Road. He continued, the property
group at that time was growing concerned at the potential cost to connect with the intersection of Sulphur
Springs Road and it was in the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Concurrent with that, there were safety
concerns from the community and the Board member from that district. Commissioner Mohn
commented, the safety concern is significant and there was an agreement at that time; the realigning of
Coverstone Drive made sense.
Commissioner Thomas commented, the $60-80 million that VDOT has stated is needed
for improvements to the transportation system, if we look at the current zoning (not what is before us
tonight) would we still need the $60-80 million or is the new rezoning causing the $60-80 million in
traffic improvements. Mr. Bishop stated it has not been studied in that way yet. Commissioner Thomas
stated regarding the HOA comment about the commercial area, the existing rezoning is essentially 1.5
million square foot of commercial area, so how would the citizens from The Ravens development get to
the existing rezoning other than crossing Millwood Pike which would essentially be more dangerous. Mr.
Bishop commented that is the most direct way to get there with the existing rezoning.
Commissioner Marston inquired where Coverstone Drive ends, in the Eastern Road Plan
was it supposed to go back around to Route 522. Mr. Bishop stated he believes he is referring to the 522
realignment. Commissioner Marston commented that would relieve a lot at the 313 exit. Mr. Bishop
noted that is the idea and it creates a much better approach.
Chairman Kenney asked if a comparison was completed by the Applicant as requested at
the work session. Mr. Bishop stated he has not received anything yet and referred the question to Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Randy Minchew, representing the Applicant gave a brief presentation and share the
comparison to rezone residential to commercial:
• Existing Rezoning #10-08
o 277.22 acres R4 (Residential Planned Community)
o Approved 550 residential units plus 1,285,000 SF office and retail
13
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3824
Minutes of June 2, 2021
• Proposed Rezoning #01-21
o M1 (Light Industrial District), 264.72 acres
o B2 (General Business District) 12.5 acres
o Total proposed SF 2,995,600
Mr. Minchew and Mr. Doug Kennedy then shared the approved Development Plan and
the proposed Development Plan. He presented the Airport Support Area and noted; the Airport Support
Area discourages new residential construction and the proposed elimination of the 550 entitled residential
units would further support the goals of the Airport Support Area. Mr. Minchew reviewed the
Community Benefits:
• Economic Benefits
o Estimated construction investment at full buildout - $1,464,00
o Estimated annual real estate taxes - $1,464,000 (assumes .61 per $100 on
$241,000,000 valuation)
o Brings Frederick County’s Real Estate Tax Assessments closer to the
Comprehensive Plan’s goal of 25% commercial from today’s 20%
o Estimated direct and indirect employment – 1,120 to 1,350
o Estimated annual wages - $45,000,000 to 55,000,000
o Estimated annual employee benefits - $6,600,000 to $7,100,000
• Traffic Impact Reduction
o Reduction of traffic impacts with the elimination of the 550 units
currently entitled
o Traffic from approved 550 units and 1,285,000 SF commercial uses is
equivalent to 47,00 trips per day vs. the proposed 2,9995,600 SF of
industrial uses – 17,000 trips per day (a reduction of 60%)
o The approved traffic study did not consider the new Crossover Boulevard
in its analysis
o The ability to connect to future roads at western edge of Coverstone as
Frederick County develops its long-term traffic plan
• School Impact Reduction
o Elimination of 550 residential units
o School reduction of approximately 1,000-1,500 future students
o Savings of 1.50 million for future elementary school building
o Estimated cost of $35,734 per student (Virginia Department of Education
annual report as of 2/22/2021 student school building cost)
o Savings of $35,734,000 (assuming 1,000 students)
• Existing Proffers Previously Completed
o National Guard Armory property dedication (10.13 ac.) and Pendleton
Drive construction land value - $607,800 and Road and Sewer
improvements - $1,000,000 = $1,607,800
o Frederick County Sheriff’s Office property dedication (12.93 ac.)
Coverstone Drive construction land value - $775,800 and Road and
Utility improvements - $2,800,000 = $3,575,800
14
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3825
Minutes of June 2, 2021
• Proposed Proffers with this Application
o Completion of Coverston Drive providing direct access from Route 50 to
Frederick County Public Safety Building estimated cost - $6,000,000
o Completion of Pendleton Drive connection estimated cost - $2,000,000
o Intersection improvements completion at Route 50 and Coverstone Drive
estimated cost - $1,250,000
o Offsite improvements to Prince Frederick Drive and Costello Drive
estimated at - $2,000,000
o Completion of Coverstone Drive and Pendleton will allow for future road
connection to Airport Drive and to Route 522 as outlined in the Frederick
County 2035 Transportation Plan
Planning Commission Members reiterated their concerns with the traffic impacts, proper
signalization, and the issue of imminent domain.
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Kozel and seconded by Commissioner Thomas
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does recommend approval of Rezoning
#01-21 for One Logistics Park Winchester, submitted by Gordon, to rezone 277.16+/- acres from the R4
(Residential Planned Community District to the B2 (General Business) and M1 (Light Industrial) Districts
with proffers. The properties are located approximately one mile east of I-81 on the south side of
Millwood Pike (Route 50), east of Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) and Coverstone Drive (Route
1538) and west of Arbor Court and Pendleton Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District and are identified
by Property Identification Numbers 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-A-84, 64-A-86, and 64-A-87.
Yes: Triplett, Thomas, Marston, Jewell, Kozel, Cline, Oates, Morrison, Dawson, Mohn, Kenney
No: Molden
Abstain: Manuel
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman
___________________________
Roderick B. Williams, Secretary
15
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: July 21, 2021
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: June 16, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
PC07-21-21MinutesJune16.pdf
16
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3826
Minutes of June 16, 2021
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on June 16, 2021.
PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S.
Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District; H.
Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Betsy Brumback, Back Creek District; John F. Jewell, Back Creek
District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; Charles E.
Triplett, Gainesboro District; Alan L. Morrison, Member at Large; Roderick B. Williams, County
Attorney.
ABSENT: Elizabeth D. Kozel, Shawnee District.
STAFF PRESENT: Wyatt G. Pearson, Director: Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; Mark R.
Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kenney called the June 16, 2021 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Manuel
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
17
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3827
Minutes of June 16, 2021
COMMITTEES
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee – Mtg. 06/14/21
Commissioner Mohn reported the Committee reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Update
which included the Plan (Draft Section Part 3), Section V Transportation, and Section VII Historic
Resources. Also discussed was the language for Appendix II, Land Use.
Frederick Water – Mtg. 06/15/21
Commissioner Jewell reported the Board received and update of delinquent residential
accounts; Frederick Water resumed disconnections of delinquent residential accounts the beginning of
June. In the first cycle of disconnections, 142 delinquent accounts were disconnected from the water
service and as of June 15, 2021 all, but 5 accounts had paid their outstanding balances and had services
restored. He noted, the next cycle of disconnections begins on June 16, 2021 and it contains 347
delinquent accounts. Commissioner Jewell reported the Board received an update on the Opequon Water
Supply Plan; construction continues to advance on the new 8 million gallon per day Sliwinski water
treatment plant and quarry reservoir in Clearbrook. The plant will be delivering water to Frederick Water
customers in Spring 2022. Commissioner Jewell shared the May operations report and the rainfall totals.
City of Winchester – Mtg.
Chairman Kenney reported on behalf of the City of Winchester. The City discussed rules
of short term rentals; recommended approval of two short term rental requests; and tabled regulations that
guide home share and short term rentals.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission.
Mr. Charlie Mearkle of the Shawnee District came forward and shared his concerns with
the rezoning for One Logistics. He requested the Planning Commission rescind their recommendation of
approval. He would like to see the property remain residential and is concerned with the negative impacts
this proposed rezoning will have on the surrounding area.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments
portion of the meeting.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
18
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3828
Minutes of June 16, 2021
Rezoning #03-21 for CRT Properties, LLC submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone .75 acres
from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers, and 3.09
acres from the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers, totaling 3.84 acres. The
properties are located at the corner of Northwestern Pike (Route 50 W) and Botanical Boulevard in
the Gainesboro Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 53-A-73,
53-A-74, 53-A-75, 53-A-76, and 53-A-77.
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible
conflict of interest.
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, reported this is a proposal to rezone five parcels
totaling 4.84 acres from the RA and B2 Zoning Districts to the B2 District with proffers. The parcels are
located at the corner of Route 50 and Botanical Boulevard. She continued, four of the subject parcels
were rezoned to the B2 District with Rezoning #08-08 for Botanical Square and this proposal would
rezone parcel 53-A-73, which totals .75 acres, to the B2 District and bring all five parcels under one
proffer statement. Ms. Perkins explained, the site is located within the limits of the Round Hill Land Use
Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan; the Plan identifies the site with a commercial land use designation
and the properties are also within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). She noted,
the existing and requested zoning is consistent with the goals of the Plan. Ms. Perkins shared what is
proposed with this rezoning request:
• 4.09 acres zoned B2, with revised proffers, .75 acres zoned RA, seeking B2
zoning with proffers
• Proffered GDP which depicts site access, transportation improvements, buffers
and parking
• Route 50 right-of-way improvements as required by VDOT
• Botanical Boulevard improvements as required by VDOT, pedestrian
accommodations, signalization agreement (or cash payment if a signal is not
warranted)
• Route 50 corridor buffer with trail
• Building design and parking location proffers, maximum floor area of 36,000 sf
Ms. Perkins presented the GDP for this rezoning. She concluded, the impacts associated
with this requested rezoning appear to be addressed by the scope of the proffer statement submitted by the
Applicant.
Mr. John Lewis of Painter-Lewis P.L.C., representing the Applicant shared this is a basic
housekeeping rezoning. He noted, with the previous rezoning people lived in a home on the property and
now there is no one living there.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Thomas
19
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3829
Minutes of June 16, 2021
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Rezoning #03-21 for CRT Properties, LLC submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone .75 acres
from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers, and 3.09 acres
from the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers, totaling 3.84 acres. The properties are
located at the corner of Northwestern Pike (Route 50 W) and Botanical Boulevard in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 53-A-73, 53-A-74, 53-A-75,
53-A-76, and 53-A-77.
(Note: Commissioner Kozel was absent from the meeting)
Conditional Use Permit #03-21 for Winchester Cold Storage submitted to construct a tractor truck
and tractor truck trailer parking facility for the adjacent warehouse and storage facility. The
subject property is located on Brooke Road and is identified with Property Identification Number
54-4-4 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Oates would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible conflict
of interest.
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator reported this is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a tractor truck and tractor truck trailer parking located within the Fort
Collier Industrial Park. He noted, this use is only permitted as a conditional use in the M1 (Light
Industrial) District. Mr. Cheran continued, the property is located on Brook Road, adjacent to the existing
Winchester Cold Storage facility, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. He explained, the property is
zoned M1, and the current land use is vacant; the surrounding properties are zoned M1 and utilized for
industrial purposes. He noted, the Comprehensive Plan depicts this area as remaining industrial in nature.
Mr. Cheran shared a location map and a zoning map of the property. He presented the supplementary Use
Regulations:
• All areas utilized for the parking of tractor trucks and the storage of trailers shall
utilize a gravel or paved surface.
• All paved and gravel surfaces shall be properly maintained to ensure that dirt,
mud, gravel, or the like is not distributed onto roadways.
• No inoperable tractor trucks or damaged/salvage trailers, or unlicensed trailers
shall be parked or stored on the site.
• Fuel sales shall not be permitted.
• Maintenance of trucks and trailers shall not be permitted.
• Facilities shall be required to landscape the yard area within the front setback to
provide for a double row of evergreen trees that are staggered and planted a
maximum of 12 feet on center. All trees shall be a minimum of four feet in
height at the time of planting. The Board of Supervisors may allow for alternative
landscaping based on topography and/or adjacent land uses.
• A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII shall be submitted
to and approved by Frederick County.
20
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3830
Minutes of June 16, 2021
Mr. Cheran shared the conditions for this CUP as recommended by Staff:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all
times.
2. A site plan shall be submitted and approved by Frederick County prior to the
establishment of this use.
3. No new entrances shall be constructed from Brooke Road (Route 1328) for this
Conditional Use Permit.
4. The site plan shall meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance Section 165-204.24 tractor truck and tractor truck trailer parking.
Commissioner Mohn commented, the distinction and reason for this CUP is it is a
standalone parking facility that is not accessory to a warehouse or other industrial use. Mr. Cheran stated
that is correct. Chairman Kenney asked if access would be from Smithfield Avenue. Mr. Cheran
commented there is an interparcel connector with the Cold Storage and it will be paved or gravel.
Mr. Tim Stowe, of Stowe Engineering P.L.C. commented this is an opportunity to help a
local business operate more efficiently.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Cline and seconded by Commissioner Manuel
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #03-21 for Winchester Cold Storage submitted to construct a tractor truck and
tractor truck trailer parking facility for the adjacent warehouse and storage facility. The subject property
is located on Brooke Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-4-4 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Kozel was absent from the meeting)
Conditional Use Permit #04-21 for C Clan, LLC submitted to construct a tractor truck and tractor
truck trailer parking facility. The subject properties are located on Ebert Road and are identified
with Property Identification Numbers 43-21-7 and 43-21-8 in the Stonewall magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Oates would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible conflict
of interest.
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, reported this is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a tractor truck and tractor truck trailer parking lot on two (2) parcels
located within the Carroll Industrial Park and this use is only permitted as a conditional use in the M2
District. He continued, the subject properties are located on Ebert Road, in the Stonewall Magisterial
District. Mr. Cheran explained the property is zoned M2 (General Industrial) District, and the current
land use is vacant; the surrounding properties are zoned M2 and utilized for industrial purposes. He
continued, this CUP has been applied for in response to a zoning violation for operating tractor truck and
21
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3831
Minutes of June 16, 2021
tractor truck trailer parking on these properties without an approved CUP and approval of a CUP is one
avenue to abate this violation. Mr. Cheran shared a zoning map of the area. He presented the
Supplementary Use Regulations associated with this type of application:
A. All areas utilized for the parking of tractor trucks and the storage of trailers shall
utilize a gravel or paved surface.
B. All paved and gravel surfaces shall be properly maintained to ensure that dirt,
mud, gravel or the like is not distributed onto roadways.
C. No inoperable tractor trucks or damaged/salvage trailers, or unlicensed trailers
shall be parked or stored on the site.
D. Fuel sales shall not be permitted.
E. Maintenance of trucks and trailers shall not be permitted.
F. Facilities shall be required to landscape the yard area within the front setback to
provide for a double row of evergreen trees that are staggered and planted a
maximum of 12 feet on center. The side and rear yards shall be planted with a
single row of evergreen trees that are planted a maximum of 40 feet on center.
All trees shall be a minimum of four feet in height at the time of planting. The
Board of Supervisors may allow for alternative landscaping based on topography
and/or adjacent land uses.
G. A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII shall be submitted
to and approved by Frederick County.
Commissioner Morrison commented the Route 37 right-of-way should be minimal,
basically all the County can do at this time is notify the Applicant of the ROW. Mr. Cheran noted, that is
correct, and they would be made aware during the site plan process.
Mr. Cheran reported the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) of the Comprehensive Plan
identifies this area of the County with an industrial land use designation; furthermore, the NELUP Plan
and the Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Plan depicts future Route 37 on the western boundary of
this property. A goal of the Area Plan and the County’s Eastern Road Plan is the implementation of
Route 37. Mr. Cheran noted; the conditions for this CUP do not provide for the acquisition of the future
Route 37 ROW. Mr. Cheran presented the Conditions for the CUP as recommended by Staff:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all
times.
2. A site plan shall be submitted and approved by Frederick County prior to the
establishment of this use on these properties. The site plan for the property
identified as 43-21-7 shall be designed to accommodate the future Route 37
ROW.
3. The site plan shall meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance Section 165-204-.24 tractor truck and tractor truck trailer parking.
Ms. Beth Lewin representing the Application came forward and gave a brief history of
the property. She noted she was not aware that a CUP was needed on her master development plan
however she wants to go through the proper channels. She stated the property is currently for sale
therefore this could be temporary.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
22
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3832
Minutes of June 16, 2021
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Cline and seconded by Commissioner Manuel
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #04-21 for C Clan, LLC submitted to construct a tractor truck and tractor truck
trailer parking facility. The subject properties are located on Ebert Road and are identified with Property
Identification Numbers 43-21-7 and 43-21-8 in the Stonewall magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Kozel was absent from the meeting)
Conditional Use Permit #05-21 for Corey Garrison submitted for the establishment of a boat repair
shop. The subject property is located at 7341 Northwestern Pike, Gore VA and is identified with
Property Identification Number 27-A-93 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, reported this is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a boat repair shop; the subject property is located at 7341
Northwestern Pike, Gore, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. He continued, the property is zoned RA
(Rural Areas) District, and the surrounding properties are zoned RA and have residential land uses. He
noted, the site previously operated as an automobile repair shop under an approved conditional use
permit. Mr. Cheran shared a location map of the property. He explained a boat repair shop is defined in
the Zoning Ordinance as: A structure or portion thereof, designed or used for servicing, repair or
equipping boats. Mr. Cheran commented, all boat repair uses shall meet the following requirements for
Supplementary Use Regulations – 165.204.33 boat repair shop:
A. All repair activities shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure.
B. All exterior storage of parts, equipment, and boats shall be screened from view of
surrounding properties by an opaque fence or screen a minimum of six (6) feet in
height. This fence or screen shall be adequately maintained.
C. In the RA, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts the sale or resale of boats shall not be
permitted as an accessory or secondary use to a boat repair shop.
Mr. Cheran presented the conditions for this CUP as recommended by Staff:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all
times.
2. An illustrative sketch plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick
County and all improvements completed prior to the establishment of the use.
3. This use shall meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
Section 14-204.33 boat repair shop.
4. Hours of operation shall not exceed 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Sunday.
5. Any proposed business sign shall be monument style not to exceed twenty-five
(25) square feet in size and ten (10) feet in height.
6. No more than two (2) employees with this CUP.
7. Conditional Use Permit #04-01 shall be void upon approval of this Conditional
Use Permit.
8. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
23
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3833
Minutes of June 16, 2021
Commissioner Thomas asked if the Applicant understands and agrees to the conditions of
this CUP; Mr. Cheran commented yes, he does.
Mr. Corey Garrison, the Applicant came forward and shared the need of this building to
operate his boat business. He noted, he will adhere to the conditions as they are very simple.
Chairman Kenney asked if all work will be done inside the building. Mr. Garrison stated
yes, and he has put up a fence so that a couple boats can be placed there while waiting for repair.
Commissioner Jewell asked what are the sizes of the boats being worked on. Mr. Garrison commented
they are various sizes.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Thomas
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #05-21 for Corey Garrison submitted for the establishment of a boat repair
shop. The subject property is located at 7341 Northwestern Pike, Gore VA and is identified with Property
Identification Number 27-A-93 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Kozel was absent from the meeting)
-------------
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION
Clarke County request for Water and Sewer Service in the Double Tollgate Area
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director, reported Frederick County has received a request
from Clarke County to authorize Frederick Water to provide public water and sewer service for
approximately 350+/- acres (zoned Highway Commercial) in the Double Tollgate area. Specifically, this
area is located at the intersection of Stonewall Jackson Highway (Route 522), Lord Fairfax Highway
(Route 340), and Fairfax Pike (Route 277). She continued, the requested water and sewer capacity is
150,000 gallons per day. Currently, Frederick Water provides public water service to the former “Camp 7
State Correction Facility” property in Clarke County. Ms. Perkins explained, Frederick County’s Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA) is a growth boundary, and as outlined in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan,
it designates the limit of where public water and sewer could be extended; the County’s current SWSA
boundary for this area surrounds only the Lake Frederick development. She continued, the Crooked Run
Wastewater Treatment Plant (CR-WWTP) provides sewer service to Lake Frederick and is located within
this development; a 12” water main currently exists along Route 277 to the Clark County line and the new
elevated water tank is located in the vicinity. She shared a map of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan.
Ms. Perkins reported, the Double Tollgate area requested by Clarke County is not
adjacent to the limits of the SWSA, as shown in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP). There
are approximately 200 acres at the corner of Route 522 and Route 277 in Frederick County that are
24
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3834
Minutes of June 16, 2021
outside the current limits of the SWSA which lie between the Crooked Run SWSA and the requested
Clarke County properties; the properties in Frederick County are planned for future mixed use and
industrial. Ms. Perkins noted, in reviewing this request, Staff worked with Frederick Water to identify
what would be necessary to serve the Clarke County request and scenarios that would facilitate service to
both Clarke County and areas of Frederick County identified in the Southern Frederick Plan that are
outside the current limits of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Perkins presented the various scenarios:
• Scenario1 – 350 acres in Clarke County at Double Tollgate – 150,000 GPD
Water service is available via a 12” water main adjacent to Route 277
Sewer flows accommodated most easily at CR-WWTP
Sanitary sewer infrastructure would need to be constructed to convey the
flows from the Clarke County properties to CR-WWTP
The CR-WWTP would need to be upgraded/expanded to accommodate
the additional wastewater flows. The developer of Lake Frederick, by
existing agreement, would be the party responsible for granting
permission to utilize the CR-WWTP as well as for the financing the
upgrading to the CR-WWTP
Clarke County and Lake Frederick’s developer will need to achieve an
agreement regarding access to CR-WWTP and funding the treatment
plant upgrade to accommodate the 150,000 GPD
• Scenario 2 – Clarke County properties and the area south of Route 277 that
adjoins the Crooked Run SWSA
Clarke County’s request for 150,000 GPD sewer services, and the
potential for up to 100,000 GPD of water/sewer to support approximately
300-acres in Frederick County
Water service is available via a 12” water main adjacent to Route 277
Combined flow of 250,000 GPD, this sanitary sewer flow increase may
be too much for an expanded CR-WWTP to accommodate due to the
plant’s limited discharge abilities; this could overwhelm the existing
receiving creek
Further studies, DEQ discharge permit amendments, and an agreement
with Lake Frederick’s developer and Clarke County would be necessary;
CR-WWTP upgrade would be needed and CR-WWTP would
presumably operate more efficiently with the increased sanitary flows
The alternative wastewater treatment solution for Scenario 2 would be at
the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (PM-WWTP)
PM-WWTP has adequate available treatment capacity; although the
limited projected sanitary sewer flows (250,000 GPD) would probably
not support the necessary financial investment to construct the sanitary
sewer pump station, force main, and gravity line needed to convey the
wastewater to PM-WWTP
• Scenario 3- Clarke County’s request and the Route 277 “Triangle Area”
Potential for up to 1.3 MGD of water/sewer to support approximately
700-acres of SWSA expansion within the 277-triangle area.
The expanded SWSA when combined with Clarke County’s flow brings
additional wastewater treatment demands to 1.5 MGD; sanitary sewer
flows would need to be conveyed to PM-WWTP
25
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3835
Minutes of June 16, 2021
PM-WWTP has adequate available treatment capacity in the short term
but would require an expansion in the future
At least two sanitary sewer pump stations, force mains, and a gravity
sewer line would need to be constructed to convey the wastewater to
PM-WWTP
Ms. Perkins concluded, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC)
discussed this request and the three scenarios at their meeting on May 10, 2021:
• The CPPC did support provision of services to Clarke County but felt that
opportunities for properties in Frederick County should also be a focus
• With Scenario 1, the Crooked Run Plant, even if expanded could only
accommodate the acreage of the Clarke County properties
• With Scenario 2, the CPPC felt this would not be a viable option due to the cost
to extend lines to the Parkins Mill Treatment Plant for this limited acreage
• Consensus of the CPPC was to support Scenario 3. This scenario, while having a
large associated cost, is the preferred option due to the potential for economic
opportunities that could be developed in an area that has been planned for
industrial uses for many years
Commissioner Mohn asked for clarification that the CPPC endorsed Scenario 3. Ms.
Perkins stated that is correct. Commissioner Oates noted the CPPC also had consensus that if it goes to
Scenario 3 may stop short of getting into the housing development and mainly have for the
industrial/commercial use. Ms. Perkins commented the main focus would have been the
commercial/industrial possibly with such a large undertaking it may necessitate going back for further
study. Commissioner Thomas inquired, Clarke County is requesting 150,000 GPD; would we have a
hard shutoff when they reach that mark. Ms. Perkins stated yes unless it came back to the Board of
Supervisors with a request for more. Commissioner Mohn asked if the agreement would be between the
Board of Supervisors and Clarke County. Ms. Perkins noted, the agreement would be between the parties
that own the plant and the requestor of the use.
This item was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable consensus.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Manuel to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cline and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman
___________________________
Roderick B. Williams, Secretary
26
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: July 21, 2021
Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items
Title: Ordinance Amendment for Opaque Fencing Requirements (Waiver) - (Mr. Klein)
Attachments:
PC07-21-21OAOpaqueFencingRequirementsWaiver.pdf
27
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion - Ordinance Amendment – Opaque Fence Requirements (revised)
DATE: July 9, 2021
Background & Ordinance Amendment Proposal
The Board of Supervisors at their May 12, 2021, meeting, sent the proposed amendment to modify
requirements for opaque fencing back to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC)
for further revisions. Specifically, the Board directed Staff to amend the text to allow for the utilization of
chain-link fencing with slats for zoning district buffers through a Board of Supervisors waiver. Further, the
Board of Supervisors were generally supportive of allowing chain-link fencing with slats in the County’s
business and industrial districts.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow for double-walled winged slats and chain-link fence to
satisfy the opaque fence requirement for zoning district buffers through a waiver if granted by the Board of
Supervisors. To be eligible for a waiver, the applicant/owner/developer requesting a waiver must have
written consent from the adjoining (affected) property owners to proceed. Additionally, the proposed
amendment would allow chain-link fence with slats for certain uses in the County’s business and industrial
districts. These uses include outdoor storage and processing, motor vehicle uses, automotive repair shops,
public garages, trash storage, and storage/self-storage facilities.
This request for a Zoning Ordinance text amendment was initiated by a business through their Board of
Supervisors representative.
Current Zoning Ordinance Standards:
The Zoning Ordinance definition (§165-101.02) for an opaque fence specifies: “a fence that is constructed
to visually obscure structures, outdoor storage areas, and other uses. A chain link fence with slats shall not
constitute an opaque fence.” The opaque fence requirement is also referenced in other sections of the
Zoning Ordinance including:
§165-201.10 Outdoor storage and processing.
§165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements.
§165-204.11 Landfills, junkyards, trash disposal and inoperable vehicles (dumpster enclosures).
§165-204.12 Motor vehicle service uses, automotive repair shops and public garages.
§165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-service.
In satisfying the requirements for an opaque fence in the above sections, a 6-foot (FT) tall board-on-board
28
OA – Opaque Fence Requirements (revised)
July 9, 2021
Page 2
fence, hedge, wall, or a berm is typically required. However, a chain link fence with an opaque vinyl tarp
attached to it has also been allowed to satisfy the “opaque fence” requirement in certain circumstances. For
these outdoor storage areas, chain link is the preferred type of fence for security.
Zoning district buffers and residential separation buffers require an opaque fence to screen differing land-
uses on adjoining properties. The elements fulfilling the requirements for a “full screen” buffer are
landscape plantings, plus a 6-FT tall opaque wall, fence, hedge or berm. The full screen components were
expanded in 2019 through a text amendment approved by the Board of Supervisors, to allow an additional
two (2) rows of evergreen trees that are six feet tall at time of planting in lieu of an opaque fence.
DRRC Summary
The DRRC discussed the revised text as requested by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June 24,
2021. The DRRC offered no changes to the revised amendment specifying that double-walled winged slats
and chain-link fence to satisfy the opaque fence requirement for zoning district buffers through a waiver
granted by the Board of Supervisors. The DRRC did express concern with requiring a waiver to go before
the Board of Supervisors when the consent of neighboring (affected) property owners had already provided
in writing. The DRRC suggested a waiver by the Zoning Administrator may be more appropriate.
Conclusion and Requested Action:
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with bold italic for
text added). This item is presented for discussion. Staff is seeking comments from the Planning
Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors.
MTK/pd
Attachment: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
29
Proposed Changes – Opaque Fence Requirements
Revised May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
ARTICLE II
Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses
Part 201
Supplementary Use Regulations
§165-201.10 Outdoor storage and processing.
The outdoor storage or processing of products, equipment or raw materials is allowed in the business and
industrial districts or in association with business uses allowed in any other zoning district only if the
outdoor storage is directly associated with the primary uses of the property.
A. In such cases, the outdoor storage or processing shall be completely screened from the view of road
and street right-of-way and from surrounding properties by a six-foot-tall opaque fence, wall, berm
or evergreen screen. In no case shall chain-link fencing with slats be utilized for screening.
a. Chain-link fencing with slats, with a privacy factor of 90% or greater may be utilized to
satisfy the opaque fence requirements when the adjoining properties are in the B-2
(General Business), B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial), M-2 (Industrial
General), OM (Office-Manufacturing), EM (Extractive Manufacturing), MS (Medical
Support) Districts, or other zoning districts where the proposed use is also allowed.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats; or equivalent
if approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green, brown,
black, or tan. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking wings and
double walls shall be prohibited.
d. Chain-link fencing with slats shall not be permitted to be used as a screen along primary,
arterial, or collector roadways.
Part 203
Buffers and Landscaping
§165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements.
It is the intent of the regulations of this section to encourage proper design of a site in order to protect
adjacent existing uses and to protect proposed uses within the site. Certain types of uses must be buffered
from other types in order to ensure a desirable living environment. Additionally, appropriate distances
must be maintained between commercial, industrial, and residential uses and roads.
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in
certain zoning districts.
11. The Board of Supervisors may grant a waiver to allow chain-link fence with slats to satisfy
the opaque fence requirements for zoning district buffers between land primarily used for
residential purposes and land located in the B-1 (Neighborhood, Business) or B-2 (General
Business) Zoning District with the consent of the adjacent (affected) property owners. A
chain-link fence with slats shall meet the following criteria:
a. Chain-link fencing with slats must have a privacy factor of 90% or greater.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats.
30
Proposed Changes – Opaque Fence Requirements
Revised May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green,
brown, black, or tan.
d. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking wings and double walls
shall be prohibited.
Part 204
Additional Regulations for Specific Uses
§165-204.12 Motor vehicle service uses, automotive repair shops and public garages.
B. All exterior storage of parts and equipment shall be screened from view of surrounding properties
by an opaque fence or screen at least six feet in height. This fence or screen shall be adequately
maintained.
a. Chain-link fencing with slats, with a privacy factor of 90% or greater may be utilized to
satisfy the opaque fence requirements when the adjoining properties are in the B-2
(General Business), B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial), M-2
(Industrial General), OM (Office-Manufacturing), EM (Extractive Manufacturing),
MS (Medical Support) Districts, or other zoning districts where the proposed use is also
allowed.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats; or equivalent
if approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green, brown,
black, or tan. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking wings and
double walls shall be prohibited.
d. Chain-link fencing with slats shall not be permitted to be used as a screen along
primary, arterial, or collector roadways.
§165-204.18 Storage facilities, self-storage.
F. Self-storage facilities shall meet the following landscaping or screening requirements.
4) The installation of an opaque wall or fence that is a minimum of six feet in height may
substitute for required landscaped areas in all zoning districts.
a. A solid building wall, free of windows or doors, is not required to be screened.
b. Chain-link fencing with slats, with a privacy factor of 90% or greater may be
utilized to satisfy the opaque fence requirements when the adjoining properties are
in the B-2 (General Business), B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial),
M-2 (Industrial General), OM (Office-Manufacturing), EM (Extractive
Manufacturing), MS (Medical Support) Districts, or other zoning districts where
the proposed use is also allowed.
c. Chain-link fencing with slats shall consist of double-walled winged slats, or
equivalent approved by the Zoning Administrator.
d. Chain-link fencing with slats shall only utilize the following colors: dark green,
brown, black, or tan. The use of wood slats or plastic slats without interlocking
wings and double walls shall be prohibited.
e. Chain-link fencing with slats shall not be permitted to be used as a screen along
primary, arterial, or collector roadways.
31
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: July 21, 2021
Agenda Section: Information/Discussion Items
Title: Ordinance Amendment for Master Development Plans (Approval Process) - (Mr.
Klein)
Attachments:
PC07-21-21OA MasterDevelopmentPlans.pdf
32
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion - Ordinance Amendment – Master Development Plans
DATE: July 9, 2021
Background & Ordinance Amendment Proposal
This is a discussion for a potential Zoning Ordinance text amendment to modify the application and review
process for Master Development Plans (MDP) prior to the plans being administratively approved.
Currently, these plans must be reviewed as informational items by the Planning Commission (PC) and
Board of Supervisors (BOS) prior to their approval; no action is taking by the PC or the BOS as the plans
meet all County ordinance requirements.
Staff has drafted a revision to remove the requirement that Master Development Plans (MDP) be presented
to the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) at a public meeting as an information
item prior to administrative approval. With this proposed amendment, when MDP’s are administratively
approvable (i.e., plans are in conformance with the Code of Frederick County and have been approved by
all applicable agencies such as Frederick Water and/or VDOT), the MDP would proceed directly for
signature (approval) by the Planning Director and County Administrator.
Current Zoning Ordinance Standard:
Per §165-801 of the Zoning Ordinance, a preliminary master development plan (MDP) shall be submitted
to the Director of Planning and Development and shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors as an informational item. Ultimately, the MDP must receive administrative approval
from the Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator prior to any subdivision or
development of property.
Master development plans have been a requirement in the Frederick County since adoption of the 1973
Zoning Ordinance. However, the requirement to present the item for informational purposes only to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors was added to the Zoning Ordinance through a 2004
amendment. The Code of Virginia does not specify a requirement for localities to require MDPs prior to a
site plan or subdivision design plan submission.
DRRC Discussion:
The DRRC discussed this item on June 24, 2021. The DRRC noted in their comments that in lieu of
presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, Planning and Development staff
should make projects easily accessible to the public for review through the website or other means and
provide a report the Planning Commission on pending land use applications, including MDPs. The DRRC
also expressed support for ensuring that any process for project approval, legislative or administrative, be
transparent for the public.
33
OA – Opaque Fence Requirements
July 9, 2021
Page 2
Conclusion and Requested Action:
To address concerns regarding the public availability of current projects and application materials, Planning
and Development staff has created a dedicated current projects page on the department website with
information on current land use applications, including MDPs, which is easily accessible to the public.
Additionally, staff plans on providing a link to the new web page under the “Other” section of the Planning
Commission agenda which lists all current and recently approved applications, including those that are
administratively reviewed/approved.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC (with bold italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Staff is seeking
comments from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors.
MTK/pd
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
34
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
ARTICLE VIII
Development Plans and Approvals
Part 801
Master Development Plans
§165-801.02 When required.
A. A preliminary master development plan (MDP) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and
Development. and shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item. Ultimately, the MDP must receive administrative approval from the
Director of Planning and Development and the County Administrator prior to any subdivision or
development of property in any of the following zoning districts:
§165-801.03 Waivers.
A. RP, R4, R5, and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirements of a MDP in the RP (Residential Performance), the R4 (Residential Planned
Community), the R5 (Residential Recreational Community), and the MH1 (Mobile Home
Community) Zoning Districts if the proposed property for subdivision or development:
RP Residential Performance District
R4 Residential Planned Community District
R5 Residential Recreational Community District
MH1 Mobile Home Community District
HE High Education District
MS Medical Support District
B1 Neighborhood Business District
B2 Business General District
B3 Industrial Transition District
OM Office-Manufacturing Park District
M1 Industrial Light District
M2 Industrial General District
EM Extractive Manufacturing District
35
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
1) Contains 10 or fewer single-family detached rural traditional, single-family detached
traditional or single-family detached urban dwelling units (all other permitted housing types
shall require a MDP);
2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and
land uses; and
4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this
article.
5) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP.
The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once
the site plan is in an administratively approvable form, the plan will be presented to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.
B. M1, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirement of a MDP in the M1 (Light Industrial), the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), or the
M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development:
1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or
dedicated street, road or rights-of-way and does not significantly change the layout of any
existing or dedicated street, road or rights-of-way;
2) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one
lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management
systems designed to serve more than one lot;
3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties
and land uses; and
5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
6) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a
MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site
plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form, the plan will be
presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.
C. B1, B2, B3, MS and HE Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirement of a master development plan in the B1 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (General
Business), B3 (Industrial Transition), MS (Medical Support) or HE (Higher Education) Zoning
Districts if the proposed subdivision or development:
1) Contains less than five acres in the B1 District and less than 10 acres in the B2, B3, MS
or HE District;
2) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or
dedicated street and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated
street;
36
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
3) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one
lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management
systems designed to serve more than one lot;
4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
5) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties
and land uses; and
6) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
7) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a
MDP. The site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site
plan. Once the site plan is in an administratively approvable form, the plan will be
presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165-801.06.
§165-801.06 Master development plan submission.
Applicants shall submit the number of copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and
Development specified by the Department of Planning and Development MDP application, together with
completed application materials required by the Department of Planning and Development.
A. Applicants shall provide approval comments on the proposed development from various review
agencies or departments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The
submission shall be complete and the application shall commence through the public meeting
process when the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments have been
received by the Director of Planning and Development.
B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning
and Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact
Analysis Standards.
C. When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the
plans, application materials and review agency approval comments to the Planning Commission
as an informational item.
D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to the Planning Commission, copies of the
plan, application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item.
E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially
changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were
discussed by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that
the Planning Commission review the plan as a new MDP.
F. C. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master
development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter
144, Subdivision of Land, of the County Code.
37
Proposed Changes – Master Development Plans
Draft May 25, 2021; DRRC endorsed June 24, 2021
Master Development Plan Approval Process
§165-801.07 Final master development plan.
A. The final MDP shall conform to all requirements of the County Code.
B. Applicants shall submit a minimum of five copies of the final MDP to the Department of
Planning and Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of
Planning and Development and the County Administrator.
C. The Director shall approve the final MDP if all requirements of the County Code and all review
agencies have been met. and if a preliminary MDP was presented to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors.
D. A MDP shall not be considered final until it is signed by the Director of Planning and
Development and the County Administrator.
Preapplication Conference with Staff if
required or requested
Applicant submits completed MDP application
to Staff, including all agency approval
comments.
MDP is presented to the Planning Commission
as an information item. All comments are forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
MDP is presented to the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item.
Final MDP approval by Staff.
Final subdivision or site plan can be submitted
for review.
38
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: July 21, 2021
Agenda Section: Other
Title: Current Planning Applications
Attachments:
39