Loading...
PC_07-06-05_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on July 6, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel: ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner 1; and Renee' S. Arlon, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS met twice since their last meeting, and the subject of the meetings was the implementation of the rural areas study and formulating a draft new zoning district for that area. He said the group will continue to meet every other Thursday for the neat couple months. Commissioner Thomas said the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 14, 2005, from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. in the Planning Department and their regular meeting will be held a couple weeks afterward. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1545 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -2- _ Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) • Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS will meet next week, on July 11, 2005, with the Board of Supervisors for the yearly round -up of the Comprehensive Policy Plan changes. In addition, he said the UDA Study is ongoing. Transportation Committee — 07105/05 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that Mr. John Bishop, with the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization), spoke to the Transportation Committee at their meeting on July 5. He said one of the major topics was to determine if there could be some coordination between the Transportation Committee and the Citizens Committee of the MPO. Commissioner Kriz added that Mr. Bishop also spoke to the UDA Study Group at their morning meeting on July 5. Sanitation Authority — 06/21/05 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the rainfall for the month of May was normal at 3.07 inches and the treatment plants are operating very well. He reported that the Sanitation Department is considering raising the rates next year; if so, the fee will be doubled for a water and sewer hook -up. • CITIZEN COMMENTS Comments Regarding the RA (Rural Areas) Study Mr. John Goode, a resident of the Stonewall District, thanked the Commission and the various subcommittees for listening to the position of the rural land owners, the farmers, and the large -lot landowners during the Rural Areas Study. Mr. Goode said the meetings generally fell into two categories: the ones that were positive and progressive, where much is accomplished; and, the meetings where the prevailing attitude was to penalize someone. He said those meetings were negative and he didn't enjoy those. Mr. Goode said he realized there was a concern about proffers and they failed in not having the opportunity to give proffers in the rural areas. Mr. Goode commented that within the last 24 hours, he suspected there was a fair amount of building going on in the UDA on land that has been zoned residential for a number of years; lie said this land also does not generate proffers. Mr. Goode considered these scenarios the same and he suggested a global approach be used to solve the proffer problem, rather than slipping it solely into the rural areas. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1546 Minutes of July 6, 2005, -3- PUBLIC HEARING • Conditional Use Permit #04 -05 of Eugene Cooper for an Expansion of a Cottage Occupation for a Counter Top Shop (CUP #07 -03) at 207 Herman Lewis Lane (Rt. 608). This property is identified with P.I.N. 52 -A -35C in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Bernard Suchicital stated that the applicant is requesting an expansion of Conditional Use Permit #07 -03 for a Cottage Occupation/ Custom Counter Top Shop, approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 2003, to allow for three employees to be associated with the business. Mr. Suchicital said there is a gravel lot alongside the 40 X 60 -foot workshop structure that will be sufficient for employee parking. He added that the applicant does not intend to have customers to the property. Mr. Suchicital read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the expansion to be appropriate. Commissioner Wilmot inquired about the location of the operation; she also inquired about outside storage on the property. Mr. Eugene Cooper, the applicant and property owner, said that he currently rents a storage unit and most of his work takes place in his customers' homes. In addition, Mr. Cooper said that he planned to dispose of the outside storage on his property. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Straub, • BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #04 -05 of Eugene Cooper for the expansion of a cottage occupation for a counter top shop (CUP #07 -03) at 207 Herman Lewis Lane (Rt. 608) with the following conditions: 1. All review agency requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. 3. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted. 4. No business signs shall be permitted. 5. No more than three employees shall be permitted. 6. CUP #04 -05 invalidates CUP 907 -03. is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of July 6, 2005 Page 1547 -4- Conditional Use Permit #05 -05 of Robert W. Shaw for a Cottage Occupation for Custom - Crafted Rifles at 2394 Double Church Road (Rt. 641). This property is identified with P.I.N. 93 -3 -2 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Planner Bernard Suchicital stated that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a cottage occupation for gunsmithing out of his home. Mr. Suchicital said the applicant proposes to have no more than three customers per month and to operate two days per week. He said there will be no sale of firearms on the property; no customers will be permitted to test firearms on the property; and the applicant has stated that he will only test firearms once every three -to -four weeks at appropriate hours. Mr. Suchicital explained that the applicant has a personal shooting range which runs down the gulley at the rear of his property; he said the rear of the property elevates rapidly, creating a natural berm of wooded trees and landscape. Mr. Suchicital next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Commissioner Kriz preferred to see the hours of operation noted in the list of conditions. Commissioner Thomas questioned the condition restricting the number of customers to no more than three per month. Mr. Suchicital responded that the applicant plans only to work on the weekends. He explained that the applicant has stated that he did not want any customers on his property, but the condition was added to meet Mr. Shaw's licensing requirements. • Mr. Robert W. Shaw, the applicant and owner of the property, said that he crafts custom -built target rifles; he does not get involved with any type of hand guns. Mr. Shaw said that he has worked on his own target rifles for the past ten years and would like to expand into a business where he can do work for other people. Mr. Shaw said that he plans to work only on weekends, no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m. He was comfortable with all of the conditions recommended for his permit. Chainuan DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit: Mr. John Van De Crommert, an adjoining property owner, commented that there has been a great deal of shooting on the property. Mr. De Crommert stated that the noise frightens the neighbors' riding horses and causes the dogs to bark. He said all the shooting is disturbing to hear on the weekends when a person looks forward to peace and quiet. Mr. De Crommert said that he lives in a subdivision and he is paying subdivision taxes. Mr. De Crommert was concerned about the type of people that would visit Mr. Shaw's business. Ms. Patricia Ann Keyes, an adjoining property owner, stated that the noise is deafening. Ms. Keyes said she has lived here for 15 years and every fall, everyone sites their guns in for hunting season on Mr. Shaw's property. Ms. Keyes asked if there was an acceptable decibel level that could be established at her property line. She said that she works all week and would like to have peace and quiet on the weekends. She would prefer that Mr. Shaw have his hours of operation during the week and not on Saturdays and Sundays. She also asked about baffling for sound control and the possibility of ricochet. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1548 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -5- Ms. Alice Neff, a neighboring resident, said that although she was not certain whether the discharging of firearms was taking place on Mr. Shaw's property or not, she said the noise was continuous for • ten to 20 minutes. She said the noise was not only disturbing to the area homeowners, but to pets and horses. Another citizen came forward and said she lived next to the Van De Crommerts. She said that she owns horses and so do her neighbors. She said the noise from shooting is extremely loud and it frightens the horses, which is dangerous when they ride. She hoped the volume of the noise could be taken into consideration. Mr. Shaw returned to the podium to address the comments that were made. Mr. Shaw said the use of the range he created is for his personal use. Mr. Shaw said that he uses the range when he is preparing for a competition and possibly shoots 30 -40 rounds for 30 to 45 minutes about once a month. He said the firearms he shoots are not powerful; they are intended for target- shooting only and are not hunting guns. Mr. Shaw said that he could not address the amount of noise. He said the three customers per month would not be exceeded. He said he was an active member of the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club in Manassas and any test firing and demonstrations could be done there. Chairman DeHaven said that the Commission shares the concern about the noise; however, there is nothing the community could do to restrict the discharge of firearms in the rural areas of Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the condition of three customers per month; he was not in favor of limiting the number of customers so strictly and recommended five to ten. Commissioner Thomas also believed the hours for allowable test - firing should be added into the conditions. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the • following amendments to the staffs recommended list of conditions: Condition 95 be changed to no more than ten customers per month; and the addition of Condition 97, No test firing of weapons will occur outside the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 905 -05 of Robert W. Shaw for a Cottage Occupation for Custom - Crafted Rifles at 2394 Double Church Road (Rt. 641) with the following amended conditions: I . All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No business sign shall be permitted. 3. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. 4. No retail sales of merchandise shall be permitted. 5. No more than ten customers shall be allowed on the property per month. 6. No customer shall be allowed to test firearms on the property. No test firing of weapons to occur outside of the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1549 Minutes of July 6, 2005 • UPDATE OF THE 2006 -2007 SECONDARY, PRIMARY, AND INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR FREDERICK COUNTY. THIS UPDATE WILL ESTABLISH PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROAD NETWORKS WITHIN FREDERICK COUNTY Action — Recommended Approval Planner Bernard Suchicital presented the update of the 2006 -2007 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvements Plans for Frederick County to the Planning Commission and he reviewed the priorities in each list. Mr. Suchicital pointed out that the most significant addition to the Secondary Road Improvement Plan was the re- routing of Papermill Road, at its southern end, to align with the new Justes Drive. He said that additions to the list of unscheduled hard - surface road improvement projects include Laurel Grove Road and Babbs Mountain Road. He noted that Laurel Grove Road, while not on last year's list, has been on the list in previous years. In addition, Mr. Suchicital said that the Old Baltimore Road project has been extended to include more of this road. Moving on to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Suchicital said that Rt. 37 remains the top priority recommendation, followed by improvements to Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277); improvements to Rt. 11; spot improvements to intersections along Routes 50 and 277; and the establishment of a commuter park- and -ride share lot on Rt. 7. Mr. Suchicital said that the Interstate Road Improvement Plan includes all projects on last year's plan with the addition of spot improvements along 1 -81. Mr. Suchicital concluded his presentation by noting that the Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the attached Draft 2006 -2007 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans during their meeting on June 7, 2005. • Commissioner Morris inquired if there was coordination between the County's Secondary Road Improvement Plans and the plans being formulated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Referring to the estimated costs for the major road improvement projects, Commissioner Straub asked if those monies were currently available. Commissioner Gochenour asked if any progress had been made on rail transportation. In response to Commissioner Morris' question regarding coordination with the MPO, Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy said that the MPO is actively using the County's transportation plans as a basis for their decision - making. There were no citizen comments regarding the presented road plans. Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) resident engineer, Mr. Jerry Copp, stated that all of the Aylor Road funding is available at this time; a portion of the money for Greenwood and Sulphur Springs will be available within six years and the remainder will have to come later; regarding the two revenue - sharing projects, some, but not all, of the money is available for the Inverlee Way project and the Board recently made an application for the Papermill Road project. Regarding the MPO relationship, Mr. Copp said that the Department of Planning and Development, VDOT, and the MPO are all working in conjunction with each other. Mr. Copp next briefly explained how the funds are allocated for the transportation plans. He added that rail is being considered in the environmental study under the I -81 widening concept. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1550 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -7- Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, • BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Update of the 2006 -2007 Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans for Frederick County as recommended by the Transportation Committee and as presented by the staff. Rezoning #09 -05 of Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single - family homes. The property fronts on the east side of Papermill Road (Rt. 644) and is approximately 2,300 feet west - northwest of the intersection of Papermill Road (Rt. 644); the property has access to Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reported that Rezoning #09 -05 of Freedom Manor was previously submitted to the County in 2002 as the Casey Rezoning; however, it was denied at that time. Mr. Lawrence said that a number of events have occurred since then and the applicant has assembled another package that he hopes the County will consider favorably. He said the property is now owned by Steve A. DeBrueler et als and the application is to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single- family detached homes. Mr. Lawrence pointed out an adjacent three -acre parcel which was not a part of the rezoning and he noted that it has been retained by a member of the Casey family. He said there is an easement across this property which would provide access from Rt. 522 to the subject property. • Mr. Lawrence proceeded to review the proffers submitted by the applicant. He noted that a primary access has been proffered off of Papermill Road (Rt. 644) and a secondary access has been proffered to Front Royal Pike. He noted that a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the project has also been proffered. With respect to ordinance requirements for buffers, the applicant will supplement the buffer along Papermill Road with a ten -foot hiker/biker asphalt trail. A 50 -foot buffer will be supplied along the Southern property line, against the Shenandoah Memorial Park, along with a hiker/biker trail and wrought -iron fence. is Mr. Lawrence continued, stating that a potential exists for considerable amounts of traffic to cut through this neighborhood to utilize the new state road system to exit the property. To address this, the applicant has proffered that this connection will not occur until appropriate road improvements are made at Papermill Road. In conclusion, Mr. Lawrence described the monetary contributions proffered by the applicant to transportation improvements and to capital facilities impacts. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the property owner and applicant, Steve A. DuBrueller, et al, talked about the traffic - calming system they have designed to discourage cut - through traffic between Route 522 and Papermill Road; he also spoke about the elimination of the connection to Westwood Drive. Mr. Wyatt next addressed one of the staffs comments about locating the Rt. 522 access point further south on the property, which would place the access on a portion of property that was retained by the Casey family. Mr. Wyatt said that an easement agreement was executed between the Caseys and the DeBruellers which would allow for State streets, construction, and utility crossing. He said that a green accessory structure on the Casey property may also be affected and they are seeking the ability to have the structure relocated, should the road go through. Mr. Wyatt added that all of the turn lanes and all of the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1551 Minutes of July 6, 2005 road improvements are proffered to be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit. • Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Barbara L. Midkiff, a resident on Westwood Drive, was pleased to hear that Westwood Drive would not be opened up to through traffic; however, she was still in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Midkiff said that she voiced her opposition to this rezoning in July, August, and November of 2002 because of the traffic congestion; she commented about the number of traffic accidents occurring on Rt. 522. Ms. Midkiff said the traffic continues to increase with all of the new developments and soon, the new school will be opening. She said that all of the traffic creates a hazard and it's dangerous for everyone. Ms. Robin Casey, property owner at 1210 Front Royal Road, said that she first became aware of this rezoning request on June 22, 2005, and she learned the details of the rezoning on June 24, 2005, when she called the Department of Planning and Development. Ms. Casey said that the contract agreement of December 30, 2003, between herself and Mr. DeBrueller stipulates that if the proposed right -of -way was to proceed through any existing structure, an agreement would be negotiated prior to its installation. She requested that the Commission delay the decision on this rezoning for 30 days, to allow time for Mr. DeBrueller and her to meet and come to an agreement. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium and said that the agreement Ms. Casey spoke of is in the Commission's agenda package. Mr. Wyatt agreed with Ms. Casey on her understanding of the agreement: however, he believed there was a significant window of time to get the agreement worked out before a road is built on the property. Mr. Wyatt did not believe the rezoning would need to be delayed to resolve the issue; he said the agreement is clear regarding costs and he believed Ms. Casey was protected. • Commissioner Straub believed the plan presented was improved over the previous plan; however, she thought it was still not as good as it could be. She said she had reservations about the location; she was concerned about the bend on Papermill Road and the uncertainty about when it would be improved; the site was practically across the street from the new school sites; and she had concerns about the impacts to schools, to traffic, and to drainage. Commissioner Gochenour was also not in favor of approving the rezoning at this time because the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) was in the middle of their UDA Study; she also voiced her concern about the impacts to schools, to the water and sewer systems, and to traffic. Commissioner Morris, on the other hand, believed this was an improved plan over what was previously submitted. He said the primary problem he had with the original plan was the Westwood Drive access and the absence of an access on Papermill; he said these two issues have been resolved for him. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning 909 -05 of Freedom Manor, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 26.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 70 single - family homes with the proffers as submitted by the applicant. This rezoning was recommended for approval by the following majority vote: • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1552 Minutes of July 6, 2005 IMO YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Kriz, Triplett, Wilmot • NO: Straub, Gochenour, Thomas (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #10 -05 of Wakeland Properties, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for general commercial uses. The properties are located east and adjacent to Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522), approximately 350 feet south of the Papermill Road intersection. This property is identified with P.I.N.s 64 -A -29 and 64 -A -30 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that the application is to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for commercial uses; she said the site is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). Ms Eddy said the site is also located within the boundaries of the SFLUP (Southern Frederick Land Use Plan), which seeks to concentrate industrial and commercial uses near and around interstate, arterial, and major collector interchanges and intersections. She reported no adverse review agency comments; the County's Fiscal Impact Model indicated that the proposed development would have a positive revenue source to the County. • Ms. Eddy continued, stating that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluated the impacts of the traffic on two distinct road configuration scenarios: the first scenario was if Papermill Road statyed in its current alignment and the second assumed the future relocation of Papermill Road to align with Justes Drive at its intersection with Front Royal Pike. She said that the TIA indicated that a Level of Service (LOS) C conditions or better will be maintained on the study roads and intersections, regardless of the ultimate road configuration. Ms. Eddy next summarized the proffers submitted by the applicant. She said the applicant has proffered to develop the site with B2 land uses not to exceed 80,000 square feet of gross floor area, excluding the floor area of mini - warehouse /self storage facilities; the applicant has proffered to limit site entrances to one, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP); the applicant has proffered money towards the signalization of the intersection ofJustes Drive and Front Royal Pike and /or future design and construction of the re- aligned Papermill Road; the applicant has also proffered a monetary contribution to Sheriff and Fire and Rescue. A Commission member pointed out that the way the proffer is written, the applicant could construct an 80,000 square -foot shopping center and, if there was sufficient space in the back, they could add mini - warehouses. Ms. Eddy replied that was correct; however, she said the applicant has to comply with the zoning ordinance for specific buffers and landscaping around the mini - warehouse units. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., representing the Wakeland Trust, introduced himself and Mr. Wakeman. Mr. Maddox stated that they have eliminated residential uses altogether. Although they do not have a specific proposal for the property at this time, they • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1553 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -10- have been sensitive to the needs of the corridor through landscaping, access to sewer and water, and good drainage. • Commissioners asked if all of the County Attorney's comments would be made a part of the official record and Mr. Maddox replied yes. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Mark Smith came forward and said he was representing the Shenandoah Mobile Home Court and he wanted to clarify the entrance issue. Mr. Smith said that Shenandoah Mobile Home Court originally had two entrances; but one was given up for Justes Drive. He said the remaining entrance is very close to Justes and needs to be moved closer to the middle of the parcel to make it a safe entrance. Mr. Smith stated that he wanted to work with the representatives of the adjoining Wakeland Properties on the coordination and spacing of their entrance and right -turn lane dedication so that he has enough room available to make a safe entrance. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Smith if he might consider a shared entrance. Mr. Smith replied that he wanted to hold onto at least one entrance to make this a viable corner for the possibility of a commercial use, considering Justes will be a highly - traveled road and will probably end up at Victory Lane and Airport Road. He said he will also have an entrance off of Justes and the inter - parcel connection could also benefit this parcel economically. Ms. Ann Cross, area resident, stated that the applicant should be able to say what uses were going to be on this property before the Commission approves the rezoning, especially because of the adjacent school sites. • Mr. Bob Bann, area resident, said there were too many unanswered questions with this proposal and he believed the applicant should have concrete answers for questions about the uses designated for the property and the location of roads, etc., especially in light of the nearby schools. Ms. Roxanne Wingfield, resident at the front of Westwood Subdivision, spoke about all of the problems this area had with drainage, with tractor - trailer movement, the volume of traffic, and the noise. Ms. Wingfield believed the problems were going to get worse and she was concerned about public safety; she was not sure everything was in place to make this plan work. Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT was available to answer questions from the Commission. Board Liaison Barbara Van Osten asked for the minimum distance requirement between entrances in a 55 mph speed area. She also inquired about the likelihood of VDOT reducing the speed limit in light of the pending school construction. Mr. Ingram said the minimum distance requirement between entrances in a 55 mph speed zoned is 200 feet; he noted that as the speed limit is lowered, the required distance between entrances is less. Mr. Ingram explained that once the schools are up and running, VDOT would be able to do a traffic count and conduct a study to determine if a reduction in speed limit is warranted. Commissioner Thomas commented that he thought approval of this would be spot zoning. He said there was some B2 up the road a little further; however, this whole area between Justes Road and the development will probably see a commercial domino effect and this parcel was just the beginning. Other Commissioners said they preferred to see this site developed as commercial, rather than residential. However, they hoped the developer would establish a use that was RP- friendly, that was aesthetically - pleasing, and was not the typical strip mall. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1554 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -11- Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, • BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #10-05 of Wakeland Properties, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 7.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for general commercial uses with proffers offered by the applicant. Waiver Request of Charles and Thelma Snapp for an exception to Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144 -31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3) Minor Rural Subdivisions, to enable the family subdivision of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. The property is located on Snappy Lane, off Whissens Ridge Road (Rt. 616), approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the intersection with Wardensville Grade (Rt. 608). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 60 -A -66 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Snapp, are requesting a waiver of Section 144 -31, Subtitle C(3), of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to enable a family subdivision of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet wide. Mr. Cheran noted that three letters from adjoining property owners have been included in the Commission's agenda; all three of the property owners have declined the applicant's request for granting of an easement. Mr. Cheran said that the waiver request would only apply to the creation of a single -lot family subdivision. • Commissioner Morris asked if the 50 -foot access would still be required for the parcels at the rear of this property, even if the Commission granted the waiver for this particular subdivision. Mr. Cheran replied, yes, that was correct. Commissioner Wilmot commented that there appeared to be sufficient right -of -way at the property in question; however, progressing towards Whissens Ridge Road, there seems to be a portion where there is no right -of -way available at all. Mr. Cheran stated that was correct. He said that as you approach Whissens Ridge Road, the right -of -way narrows into what appears to be a small path. Mr. Cheran said that this older subdivision was created prior to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the right -of -way requirement wasn't taken into consideration like it is today. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the Snapp Family in this waiver request, said that Mr. and Mrs. Snapp would like to provide property for their son to construct a residence. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that the parcels towards the front of Snappy Lane, owned by Charles Snapp, Bryan Pitcock, and Dolly Snapp, do not have a 50 -foot right -of -way in place and the structures on these properties are very close to the existing lane. He said the Snapps spoke to all of their neighbors and none of them are able to provide the additional right -of -way. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1555 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -12- Mr. James Grubbs, property owner at the intersection of Whissens Ridge Road and Snappy Lane, said he had no problems with the Commission granting the Snapp's waiver request, but he believed the • boundary lines needed to be redefined because the metal stakes were taken out of the middle of the lane some time ago. Mr. Grubbs said he was not able to provide the needed right -of -way from his property. Commission members had no issues with this waiver request because the subdivision was for only one lot for a family member. Commission members said they have granted this type of request in the past. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Waiver Request of Charles and Thelma Snapp for an exception to Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144 -31, Rural Subdivisions, C(3) Minor Rural Subdivisions, in order to enable the family subdivision of land on a right -of -way less than 50 feet. DISCUSSION OF THE RURAL AREAS STUDY. PROPOSED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE RURAL AREAS WILL BECOME A COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AND GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL AREAS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. • (Please Note: Instead of a summary, the comments made during the Planning Commission's discussion of the Rural Areas Study have been typed nearly verbatim in order to provide the Board of Supervisors and the permanent record with precise comments.) • Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy presented the Rural Areas Study to the Commission as a discussion item. Ms. Eddy reported that Frederick County has been working on a Rural Areas Study for almost two years and there have been numerous meetings of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), resident surveys have been conducted, along with public visioning sessions, stake- holder meetings, public comment meetings, and joint meetings with groups of large -lot landowners. Ms. Eddy stated that an earlier version of the Rural Areas Study had been endorsed by the CPPS, which came before the Commission as a discussion item in January of 2005. She said that this latest version, however, is quite different; she said this version is based on a table of land development proposals that were forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on May 11, 2005. She noted that the table has been included in the Commission's agenda packet. Ms. Eddy stated that the Planning Commission was tasked with reviewing and studying these proposals. She further stated that the staff modified the January version of the plan to reflect the contents of the table and this draft plan, dated June 6, 2005. Ms. Eddy said that on June 13, 2005, the CPPS reviewed both the land development table and the draft which reflects what is contained in the table and they provided comments. She said those comments have been provided in the Commission's agenda. For the benefit of those in the audience and watching at home, Ms. Eddy proceeded to briefly review the contents of the June 6, 2005 draft plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1556 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -13- In conclusion, Ms. Eddy stated that the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission regarding the Rural Areas Study that could be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors during their discussion. She said their discussion is scheduled for July 13, 2005. Chairman DeHaven next called for citizen comments and Planning Commission comments. Mr. Greg Hewitt, Stonewall District, asked if State roads are required on the five -acre by- right. Ms. Eddy replied that once you get to the third lot, you do have to provide a state road; this hasn't changed from current regulations. Ms. Eddy said there is an option under the new regulations for a waiver to build a road to state standards, but keep it private. Mr. Hewitt was concerned that under the new Rural Area proposals, the developer would be required to build State roads. Mr. Dave Worthington, Frederick County property owner, said the original purpose of the Rural Areas Study was that the County had minimal influence over the form and location of residential development in the rural areas; and further, residential growth's affect on the natural, cultural, and local resources of the rural areas. Mr. Worthington said that the latest proposal utilizes terms such as, "encouraged," and there are no restrictions. He believed it was very lucrative for out -of- county, big developers to come in and put in five -acre parcels along Rt. 7 and Rt. 50. Mr. Worthington did not see the actions needed for the County to control development in the rural areas. Ms. Diane Kearns, Gainesboro District and member of the CPPS, said that the current proposal is the status quo, plus an additional option for rezoning which could be a greater density with smaller lot size, with possibly a package treatment plant. Ms. Kearns said that she was not sure how this addresses the major issues of transportation, mitigation of costs of services, and the concerns voiced at the initial stakeholder • meetings about increased growth. She was not sure this is being addressed in this latest proposal. She said that if there is an unlimited five -acre, by- right, and looking at it from the County's point of view, you can not plan for something that is unlimited. If the density is going to remain the same, then you have to deal with the time - frame, which is phasing or something else. She said there was also considerable discussion about package treatment plants and we need to think carefully about that before we move forward with this. In conclusion, she said that transportation is a huge issue and the study group never truly got into those discussions. She said this needed to be addressed and she did not see how the current plan does that. Ms. Kearns said that she had serious concerns about this plan moving forward without having more discussion. • Commissioner Straub, Red Bud District, said that considering the strike - throughs and wording changes in the current proposal, such as "encouraged" instead of "required," she believed the "teeth" of the document were gone. Commissioner Straub didn't know if the committee had done the best it could. She agreed with Ms. Kerns and with Mr. Worthington; she said this document says almost nothing when it comes to controlling the growth outside the UDA. Commissioner Unger, Back Creek District, asked about who will govern the package plants; he asked if the Board of Supervisors would decide. Chairman DeHaven, Stonewall District, replied that ultimately, it would be the Board's decision; however, the discussion has always been that the package plants would be dedicated. Commissioner Thomas, Opequon District, said that the latest option, the "third option," with the combination of allowing as little as 30,000 square -foot lots and then having the community water and sewer as an option, is leading down a perilous path of polluting the groundwater system. He predicted there would be problems, if a significant number of developments with 30,000 square -foot lots use traditional septic Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1557 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -14- systems, or even alternative septic systems, and have water wells. He said that on a 100 -acre development, 30 lots would be allowed; all of those lots would be on approximately 7`/2 to 8 acres. He said that allowing this as an option for communal water systems is poor judgment on our part. Commissioner Thomas said that if we want to go to 30,000 square -foot lots, we need to require the developer to come up with some type of communal system and require a minimum distance between the septic systems or water treatment systems and the water wells. He said to either put the restriction in the ordinance or change it from "optional" to "required." Commissioner Thomas believed this option was basically just a tweeking of the rural preservation part of our existing ordinance; he said it's a good option, but we've done nothing to solve the problem that was initially stated and that we wanted to solve. Commissioner Light, Stonewall District, stated that he was not pleased with this particular proposal; he said this proposal actually increases development; it promotes large developers to enter the RA instead of the UDA. He thought it was a huge mistake. He believed the County should direct development towards the UDA and create a situation to make the RA a vision and a view shed for the County without intense development procedures taking place. He said the rezoning option is an intense development procedure; there's no question about it. Commissioner Light said that he would like to see that option deleted; he also wanted to see the five -acre program deleted. He said that if the two options are deleted, then you have what is currently on the books today, which is better than what is being proposed. Commissioner Light did not want to see this current proposal sent forward; he said that the problems have not been solved. He said that the only thing that has been achieved is the path of least resistance. Commissioner Light said that he has gone through each individual item, made and addressed comments, and made recommendations that he would like to see added as part of the program to be sent to the Board of Supervisors as information. Commissioner Wilmot, Shawnee District, stated that over the two years the committee has been involved in this process, all of these details have been discussed, pro and con. She said that speaking • philosophically, which is where she was coming from because she could not speak to some of the details as others with more experience, she believed this current iteration of a land use plan gives the County very little opportunity to create its vision in the rural areas. She said it has left the option up to the developer and, in her mind, that was not acceptable. Commissioner Wilmot said she believed the study group and the Ad -Hoc Committee had come close, and she wanted to see the group go back and re -work the information so that the group could provide something to be proud of • Commissioner Straub, Red Bud District, stated that the one positive thing about the rezoning option, as opposed to the five -acre cookie -cutter lot option, is that with the rezoning, you have the opportunity to recoup costs from proffers; she said that will not come when a developer is building a house on a five -acre lot that will have the same impacts on the County as anyone inside the UDA who buys a lot and pays proffers so their kids can go to school, so they have fire and rescue, police, and roads. She said one of the bad things about these five -acre lots is that they contribute absolutely nothing towards the infrastructure of the County. She said that taxes do not pay for the services rendered; 70% of our taxes go to schools. Commissioner Straub stated that national builders are here and they are all building five -acre lots and the County doesn't see anything from those lots as they are built. Commissioner Gochenour, Red Bud District, thanked Commissioner Thomas for bringing the issues forward concerning water and sewer. She concurred with the majority of the comments made and believed the study group needs to go back and rework this. She said she would not want to see the current proposal go forward. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1. 5M Minutes of July 6, 2005 -15- Ms. Danita Hewitt, Stonewall District, said that she disagreed with more than half of what Commissioner Light had stated. Ms. Hewitt said that she was looking at this proposal from the view of a farmer. She said the farmer's view is not wanted in this County. She commented on the subject of view shed, which to her meant all the beautiful sites out there. She said that once the farmers go out, and they are going out and everyone knows that, new farmers are not coming back in. So, a lot of the view shed might be just beautiful pieces set aside, such as the 70 %, but it will not be the view shed everyone is used to seeing, such as the round bales of hay sitting in a field. All of that is going. Ms. Hewitt said that if you would have left all of this alone, all of us wouldn't be considering selling anything; you wouldn't have the development; you wouldn't have all of this stuff. She said that it has all been turned around to where it's getting sold because people are scared to death that later they will not be able to sell it. She said that everything she has heard is opposite of what Frederick County is to her. Ms. Hewitt said she realized that businesses and housing are needed; but the County can plan for those. She implored the Commission not to go out in the country and tell folks they can't do anything because it scares everyone to the point where they want to sell everything. She said it was the "farmers" livelihood too. She said it's notjust looking after Frederick County... it's a personal issue also. Mr. J. T. Carr, with the Top of Virginia Builders Association, stated that the main purpose for the Rural Areas Study was for preservation and the current proposal would preserve roughly 50- 70% of the acreage. He said, for example, placement of 30 houses on a 100 -acre parcel would result in approximately 26 acres or 74% of land preserved to open space; on a 200 -acre site, it would be 150. He said that was a significant improvement over 20 houses on 100 acres. In response to some of the Commissioners' comments, Mr. Carr said the national builders are not coming to Frederick County to pick up five -acre parcels of land; he said that was not their intention. He said that national builders construct on sites where they can build 500 -600 per. He said the builders everyone is seeing on the five -acre properties are either people doing custom homes or constructing one or two houses at a time. He said this is not something where the national builders are going to come in here. Mr. Carr said the TOV Builders has never had any opposition to any of the proposals that have been put in front of the Board. He said they have reviewed these proposals and although the TOV thought some modification might be needed, they were okay with them and had no major opposition. Mr. Carr believed that the Board needed to speak with the local landowners about their oppositions and concerns. He said the TOV had no major issues with this at this time. Commissioner Morris, Shawnee District, echoed the comments made by Commissioner Wilmot. Commissioner Morris said he was fortunate enough to meet frequently with the Ad -Hoc Group and he appreciated the meetings and discussions. He said the forum provided him with the opportunity to compromise on some of his strict positions. He thought progress was made and thought they had arrived at an understanding on a number of issues, including the rural preservation notion and the green infrastructure. He said then, all of a sudden, we had this injection of something that was completely foreign and alien to that process that once again, took him away from that potential consensus and compromise he had realized with the Ad -Hoc Group. Commissioner Morris said he did not like the current proposal. He said he would not feel comfortable recommending that it be forwarded with any concurrence. He suggested that once again, the study group should think in terms of revisiting that point where they departed with the Ad -Hoc Group and revisit that portion of it again. Commissioner Unger, Back Creek District, stated that Frederick County has worked on this for over two years. He said that many people and many committees worked on this. Commissioner Unger questioned taking it back for further study for another two years when all these people have been involved in it already and have come to this conclusion • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1559 Minutes of July 6, 2005 -16- Chairman DeHaven, Stonewall District, pointed out that the Commission is not sending the plan forward; the Commission is sending only comments forward. Chairman DeHaven said that throughout this entire process, it has been difficult to find any consensus and to date, they have not. He believed that as a first step, this plan was a reasonable compromise. He said that for the folks who are expecting a plan to come out that will control growth in the rural areas; it is not going to happen, period. Regarding the water and sewer issue, he said he personally believed that every home built in Frederick Counry should be on a public system; but, we are not there yet as a community, it is not possible. He thought this was a reasonable compromise first step. He did not think it was far off of where we should be as a first step. Commissioner Watt, Back Creek District, commented that through all of the meetings over the last two years and especially the Tuesday morning work sessions, the one thing he kept hearing through the entire process was to eliminate the "cookie- cutter" aspect. He said this issue keeps coming back. He said that was the one thing we wanted to eliminate and it keeps showing up. Commissioner Watt believed the rural preservation has a lot of merit, but not the five -acre cookie cutter. He said he still had a lot of problems. Commissioner Morris, Shawnee District, made a motion for Commissioner Light's written comments to be included in the thoughts forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and also to be made a part of the permanent record. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour and was unanimously passed. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS; ARTICLE XXII, DEFINITIONS, SECTION 165 -156 DEFINITIONS AND WORD USAGE; CLARIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER. • Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), at the May 26, 2005 meeting, discussed proposed changes to Section 165 -156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. He said the proposed change would add clarification and understanding to the definitions of the Code. He said the DRRS also recommended changing the full screen and landscape screen definitions, as those definitions were placed in reverse order when the ordinance was written. The Planning Commission was in full support of correcting the errors. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 9:55 p.m. submitted, S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Secretary • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1560 Minutes of July 6, 2005