Loading...
PC_06-21-06_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 June 21, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Candice E. Mills, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER is Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of the meeting of May 17, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 06/20/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed two items. The first was a subdivision on the southern edge of Route 7, along Valley Mill Road, regarding buffers and a roadside pull -off kiosk. The second item was a proposed business rezoning along the Albin area. 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1782 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -2- Sanitation Authority (SA) — 06/20/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the flow for May was dowry somewhat because of the lack of rain. He said the SA discussed the expansion of their administrative building, which will be placed out to bid within the next month or so. Also discussed was a request by Trouts Unlimited for a hook -up to water downstream, closer to the Opequon. He said the SA is going to work with Trouts Unlimited to see what can be done to move the connection where the water for the trout will not be disturbed. Commissioner Unger reported that the final item of discussion was a public hearing on availability fees, which are scheduled to increase July 1. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 06/20/06 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that WPC continued their discussion on Overlay Districts, which they are in the process of developing throughout the City. He explained that the Overlay District is a mixed -use district and the Planning Commission is trying to fine -tune it to address concerns raised by some of the local businesses. Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC also approved a subdivision request by Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, Inc. for five lots at Cider Mill Lane. In addition, they approved an ordinance to vacate approximately one -half acre of unimproved right -of -way on Caroline Street, with a conveyance to the Winchester Medical Center. ® CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on the Planning Commission's agenda for this evening. Mr. Charles Harbaugh, a resident of South Hayfield Road in the Back Creek District, came forward to ask for the Commission's assistance in cleaning -up an illegal trucking operation located across from his home. Mr. Harbaugh stated that in 2004, his neighbor, Mrs. Wine, filed a complaint about this same trucking company, which is directly in front of her home. He said the trucking company has at least three tractor and trailers operating day and night. Mr. Harbaugh said he has filed complaints with the Planning Staff Hereported the owner of the company was charged on Thursday with "improperly storing trucks and heavy equipment in an area zoned rural," and the owner and his wife were placed on two years' probation. Mr. Harbaugh said the owner did not discontinue his operations and last Saturday, he had four tractor - trailer trucks going in and out of his property. Mr. Harbaugh also pointed out that these trucks use a private road from South Hayfield Road to Route 614. Mr. Harbaugh asked if the Commission could look into this situation and do something to stop this illegal operation. I� Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1783 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -3- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #07 -06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter- Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for four single - family, detached residential dwellings. The property is located on Senseny Road (Rt.657), approximately 350 feet west of Ashley Drive (Route 63). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 65 -A -46 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the County's engineer has identified the need to provide storm water management analysis with the development of the property. Mr. Ruddy stated access to the site would be in the form of a new public street with a public cul -de -sac, thus avoiding any additional access points on Senseny Road (Rt. 657). He said the applicant's proffer statement includes a commitment to making the required frontage improvements to Senseny Road, including any necessary right -of- way dedication, lane widening, and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. He said the applicant has also proffered a contribution of $5,000 per residential lot to assist with off -site transportation improvements. Mr. Ruddy said the proffered frontage improvements, in conjunction with the monetary proffer, would appear to achieve the desired transportation enhancements in the immediate vicinity of this project. Mr. Ruddy added that the applicant has addressed the community facility impacts consistent oath the development impact model and has proffered an appropriate contribution of $23,290 per residential unit. In summary, Mr. Ruddy said the applicant's proffer statement includes the commitment to develop four single - family detached residential dwellings, the provision of a Generalized Development Plan, a commitment to frontage improvements on Senseny Road, an off -site mitigation proffer in the amount of $4,500 per lot, a monetary contribution in the amount of $23,290 to mitigate impacts associated with community facilities, and the is creation of a homeowners association for the purpose of managing open areas and providing curb -side pick -up of solid waste. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy said the Senseny Road Rentals rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Kriz asked the staff why comments from the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue disagreed with the impact model. Mr. Ruddy said the Development Impact Model is clear as far as the impacts for each service facility and the applicant has met the current development impact model calculations. Aside from that, Mr. Ruddy referred additional questions directly to the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. Mr. John Lewis with Painter - Lewis, PLC was available on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Carl Hales of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. No other questions or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning 407 -06 of Senseny Road Rentals, LLC, submitted by Painter- Lewis, PLC, to rezone two acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for four single- family, detached residential dwellings. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1784 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -4- • Rezoning #08 -06 of the Shawnee Drive (Mitchell & Webb) property, submitted by Painter - Lewis, PLC, to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for office use. The property is located on Shawnee Drive, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Route 11 and Shawnee Drive, on the right side of the road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -104 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action- Recommended Approval with Proffers Planner Candice E. Perkins reported the Shawnee Drive rezoning application is a request to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) to accommodate an office building with a maximum square footage of 9,000 square feet. Ms. Perkins said the parcel is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). She added that the applicant has submitted a proffer statement which voluntarily places several conditions on the proposed development of the property with the intent of mitigating potential impacts. She summarized the proffers, which included the submission of a Generalized Development Plan; to prohibit access onto Route 11 and limit site access to Shawnee Drive only; to provide a five -foot sidewalk along Shawnee Drive; and the contribution of $1,000 to be paid to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company for impacts to fire control services. Commissioner Morris asked for the staff to summarize the kind of buffering required between the B2 (Business General) and the residential properties to the east. Ms. Perkins replied that a 50 -foot full screen, consisting of a 25 -foot active and 25 -foot inactive buffer, is required. She explained that the inactive portion of the buffer will not contain any pavement or structures; it generally contains a board-on-board fence and three trees • per ten linear feet. Mr. John Lewis with Painter- Lewis, P.L.C. was representing the owner, Mr. Linden Vann, and the applicant, Mr. Jim Webb with Mitchell & Webb, LLC. Mr. Lewis commented that despite the fact the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for industrial use in this area, the parcel is really too small for an industrial use. He said it was not really suitable for residential and an office use is probably the best use for this particular lot. Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Lewis if he had any direct conversations with the surrounding neighbors about any issues they might have. Mr. Lewis replied no. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. No other questions or areas of concern were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and second by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning 408 -06 of the Shawnee Drive (Mitchell & Webb) property, submitted by Painter - Lewis, PLC, to rezone .94 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers for office use. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1785 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -5- • Consideration of modifications to the boundaries of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The UDA and SWSA boundaries are components of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. An evaluation of the UDA and SWSA boundaries has identified eight general areas where differences with the boundaries occur or where inconsistency with the land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan has been recognized. The modifications to more appropriately reflect the Comprehensive Policy Plan would result in a reduction of approximately 6,624 acres to the UDA and a reduction of approximately 1,495 acres to the SWSA. Action — Recommended a Tabling Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, came forward to present the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary modifications to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ruddy explained that prior to moving forward with the more creative and pro- active portions of the UDA Study, it was important to make certain that the SWSA and UDA boundaries appropriately reflected the current land use plan and that the SWSA and UDA boundaries were consistent with each other and with logical boundaries. He began by describing the primary land use concepts of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He next identified eight general areas throughout the County where consistency was needed with the underlying land use concepts of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. A series of slides with the SWSA and UDA existing and modified boundaries were shown to assist with the explanation. Mr. Ruddy concluded his presentation by stating that the modifications would result in an approximate reduction of 6,624 acres of the UDA and the reduction of about 1,495 acres within the SWSA. He • said that although the numbers seem large, it does not change the underlying land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan or enable something different to occur than what is currently envisioned. Mr. Ruddy also noted that while the County is not required to do so, the department has sent out notification to all of the property owners that could be identified and could possibly be impacted either through addition or subtraction. In addition, some additional notification was done for those properly owners who were adjacent to those SWSA expansion areas, at the request of the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Moms asked the staff to briefly inform everyone as to why the County does not believe any of these changes would result in a "taking." Mr. Ruddy replied that the underlying land use designations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan are not being changed. He explained, for example, areas previously identified for industrial or commercial uses will remain as industrial and commercial uses. Commissioner Mohn inquired if the staff had a map available that would show where the most recently submitted CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments) applications were located relative to the proposed boundary modifications. Mr. Ruddy did not have a map available at this evening's meeting; he said those applications will be presented at the next CPPA public hearing on July 10, 2006. He noted that seven submissions were anticipated to be considered. Commissioner Mohn asked if there was a reason why the boundary adjustments are moving ahead of the CPPA process. Mr. Ruddy explained that the exercise would ensure appropriate locations and consistent boundaries for the UDA Study and to provide an appropriate set of boundaries to evaluate those CPPA amendments. Not only was Commissioner Mohn concerned about how the boundary exercise was moving relative to the CPPA process, but he was also concerned about how it was proceeding relative to the rest of the UDA Study. He felt the boundary adjustments were a critical component of the overall study and he questioned if the line was pulled back with this exercise, would it be pushed out again is sometime in the future with the UDA Study. Commissioner Mohn said it concerned him that by making some of these decisions through this process ahead of the rest of the study and the CPPAs, that the County may be potentially closing the door on some opportunities or significantly influencing future discussions. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1786 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -6- Commissioner Oates asked how persons would be affected who have already submitted plans and paid their fees for applications or CPPA amendments. Mr. Ruddy said that applications already submitted to the County would be considered in the usual process. He,said that at such time as this would be adopted, then those applications would be evaluated upon the new approved lines. Commissioner Mchn again raised the CPPA issue. He presented a scenario of a property which is currently split by the UDA or adjacent to the UDA and next month the new boundary changes go into affect. The evaluation is now based on the new boundaries, which could mean the property is no longer partially in the UDA or no longer adjacent to it; he said it seemed as though the applications could be in some way prejudiced. Mr. Ruddy did not expect that to be the case; he said that each application would stand on its own merits, particularly if it's in the vicinity and has the endorsement of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Chairman Wilmot next declared the public hearing open. Chairman Wilmot said the Commission would take public comments according to the individual areas. Area #1 North of Route 37 including the area known as Apple Pie Ridge, Spring Valley, and the Stonewall Industrial Park. Boundaries to reflect existing land use designations. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. Mr. Clay Athey, an attorney with the law firm of Napier, Pond, Athey & Athey, said he was present on behalf of his clients, Glen and Pamela Russell, the owners of Tax Map Parcels 43 -A -15B and 43 -A- 16. Mr. Athey said his clients have a pending rezoning application, which was considered at the Planning • Commission's May 17, 2006 meeting and is scheduled to be heard at the Board of Supervisors' July 26, 2006 meeting. He said the Planning Staffs proposal will take these properties out of the UDA. Mr. Athey said he found himself in the unique position that if the boundary modifications are passed, the nextmeeting of the Board of Supervisors will have his rezoning application to rezone property consistent with the UDA and either before or immediately after that, it will be the staffs recommendation to take the same area out of the UDA. Mr. Athey requested that there be. some delay of discussion with respect to his two parcels until the rezoning application could be considered by the Board. He also raised the issue of a "taking" with respect to these properties and secondly, whether or not his client has any vested rights. Mr. Athey said his client purchased this property because it was in the UDA. It was Mr. Athey's opinion that it has always been the policy of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors whereby land within the UDA was permitted to be rezoned residentially. In conclusion, it was Mr. Athey's opinion that the UDA line was a part of the Comprehensive Plan and if the underlying land use designations were inconsistent, then changes should be made to the language rather than the boundary lines. Mr. Athey said that based on his analysis, it appears a great majority of these changes occur where properties are partially within the UDA and it also brings about all of the CPPA applications. He commented it had previously been the County's general policy that if part of a parcel is within the UDA, then the County will attempt to get the whole parcel within the UDA; however, this new policy seems to indicate that if part of your land is in the UDA, then the County is going to take the remainder of it out. Mr. Athey said his client also owns land in the Stephens City area; he said they have no problem with removing that property since the land is now obviously within the limits of the Town of Stephens City; he said he agreed with that part of the reduction because it was consistent. Mrs. Sue Deets said she was a property owner on Route I 1 North on Martinsburg Pike, just south of Zuckermans and before McCann's Lane. Mrs. Deets said she received a letter and she wanted to know • why and what it means to them as homeowners. She was hoping it meant they would be able to get public sewer to her property. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1787 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -7— Mr. Hurley Osten, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he wanted to speak regarding Mr. Athey's comments; he said Mr. Athey's contention is that his rezoning petition is a consistent -use issue. Mr. Osten believed the County needed to consider the UDA and SWSA boundary modifications before it heard Mr. Athey's rezoning petition because the decision on where growth should occur or where high - density areas should be located needed to be made first. Mr. Harold Schneider, a resident on Glendobbin Road, said the road through this area is not suited for high - density development. Mr. Schneider said this is . a very rural area and is not suited for a subdivision like the one Mr. Athey is proposing. Mr. Brad Katz, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he addressed the Planning Commission on previous occasions regarding Mr. Athey's Russell/Glendobbin proposal. Mr. Katz said he had two issues. The first is whether or not the property is within the UDA and whether or not it is consistent with surrounding uses. He said the parcel Mr. Athey is referring to is directly adjacent to the industrial park and the proposed rezoning is to make the area RP (Residential Performance), rather than RA (Rural Areas); which would increase the density and make the project less consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Katz added that he supported the boundary line modifications in this area. Area #2 Northeastern section of UDA, including part of the land that is adjacent to the Stephenson Village project. Consistent boundaries that follow property lines. Retention of SWSA to include B2 portion of Monastery property. Mr. Greig Aitken, a resident of the Stonewall District, said that he and his wife, Toni were the • owners of historic Jordan Springs. Mr. Aitken did not think enough notification time was given; he said on June 17, he received a notification letter, dated June 15, and today is June 21. Mr. Aitken said that he and his wife purchased Jordan Springs five years ago and have restored, maintained, and preserved the property. He talked about some of the community activities that have taken place at Jordan Springs, such as the Christmas events, charity events, and Apple Blossom activities. Mr. Aitken said last week, he received a historic plaque for Jordan Springs from the Board of Supervisors and this week, he was told his property would be removed from the UDA and the SW SA. He was very much opposed to his property being removed from the SWSA and the UDA because it would not only destroy his business, but it will negatively impact the value of his property and consequently, they will be unable to ensure the historical protections they have undertaken. Mr. Aitken was concerned that he would lose his business, his land, his personal home, and he will be unable to employ the current staff of 27. Mr. Aitken asked if this decision to remove the property from the UDA and SWSA had already been made; he asked if any of the public input will be incorporated into the decisions; and he asked why this was being done because it will affect the landowners, as well as all the residents in Frederick County. Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, an attorney with Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., said that he was present on behalf of several property owners in this area and some of the other areas as well. Mt. Lawson said he agreed with Mr. Athey, who previously spoke, th at many of the properties which are partially within the UDA and SWSA are the ones being considered for CPPAs and rezonings; his clients' properties fall into this category. He said he understood the CPPA process involved presenting site - specific issues before a committee and ultimately, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, to study a property in detail; the consideration involved examining the surrounding properties, nearby road networks, and available utilities, etc., so a decision could be made on a Comprehensive Plan basis which incorporates the UDA and SWSA, and ultimately, whether those properties should be rezoned. Because this process was so extensive, he questioned the appropriateness of the • staff making a broad -brush proposal to take thousands of acres out of the UDA and SWSA with minimal study. Mr. Lawson believed this exercise was intended as a directive from the County to property owners as to where growth will be and unfortunately, for many property owners and his clients, a case where growth will not be. He Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1788 Minutes of June 21, 2006 we did not think it was appropriate and was in direct conflict with the County's other policies and procedures. Mr. • Lawson said that instead of making this proposal the first step of the UDA and SWSA Study, which appears to be a shrinking of these areas, he suggested it be studied first, individual sites examined, the impacts and surrounding properties studied, and then a decision made. Area #3 Eastern section of UDA including a proffered State conservation area and.part of land adjacent to and north of Route 7, Route 7 consistent northern boundary. There were no public comments regarding this area. Area #4 South East section south of Senseny Road, east of Greenwood Road, and north of Sulphur Springs Road. Boundary consistency. Property lines. Mr. Carl Rinker with Urban Engineering said he was representing Mr. Eugene Grove, Jr. and Mr. Eugene Grove, Sr. Mr. Rinker said the Grove's property will be split in half by this proposal, running centrally north and south: He said the existing line goes a little below the Grove's property and actually passes through one of his lower tracts, and then goes up in a triangular shape, into one of the upper tracts. Mr. Rinker said the Groves currently have an application before the Commission to move the entire line down to Sulphur Springs Road; they believed Sulphur Springs Road is a more naturally- inhabited boundary for this property than centrally cutting through the tracts and severing them in two. He noted this land is currently leased as farmland; however, there is hard -pan shale underneath and it was not really conducive for grazing cattle or sheep. He said the ® property would be more suited to development and housing. Mr. Rinker said the Groves purchased this property a number of years ago with development in mind. He said with easy accessibility to Sulphur Springs Road, there were several amenities planned to be proffered with their application; one is the possibility of a 15 -acre school site, directly on site, and the other is the possibility of some area for day care or similar type of facility. Mr. Rinker stated that the property is not conducive to industrial or commercial. Considering the amount of traffic traveling down Sulphur Springs Road, he said the area is more conducive to housing. He pointed out a small subdivision to the north which abuts the Grove's property; he said several roads were left to empty into the Grove's property. Mr. Rinker urged the Commission to consider this property for adjustment ofboth the SWSA and UDA line down to Sulphur Springs Road, rather than cutting through the middle of the Grove's property. Mr. Rinker added that severing the property in two immensely decrease's the value of the real estate. Area #5 East of Route 522, South of Route 50, and north of Justes Drive. Winchester Regional Airport, Carpers Valley Area. Also includes area north of Route 50 and South of Sulphur Springs Road. Extension of SWSA to include existing public facilities connected to water and sewer. Mr. J. R. Shockley said he was told by engineers, lawyers, and supervisors that the UDA line would not be moved. He stated that his property is impacted by moving the line back and forth. Mr. Shockley suggested that the Commission wait and move the line one time correctly, versus moving it now and then considering a number of applications that will not have much success with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Shockley said he was in a unique area because of the schools locating in this area. He said that moving the line back and forth creates uncertainty. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1789 Minutes of June 21, 2006 • Mr. R. J. Turner, a resident of the Back Creek District, said he wanted to speak as a concerned citizen, as a real estate broker, and as a large -tract property owner who could work with Mr. Groves to help solve a lot of problems. Mr. Turner said he owned property in the Shawnee District on Cedar Creek Grade, which is his wife's store, trading as Homespun, and which also received a historic plaque from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Turner said he next wanted to speak as a real estate broker and he read several headlines from articles that appeared in the local newspaper, the Winchester Star, about Frederick County. The subject of the articles dealt with growth eliminating the need for tax increases in 2007, the decreasing farmlands, the expansion of the SWSA towards the west, and an EDC report indicating that very little land was remaining in Frederick County for development. He said today, the Winchester Star reported a lack of public parks in eastern Frederick County. Using a display map, he pointed out 85 acres to the north, adjacent to the County's landfill, and said he would develop the property with soccer fields and a park, if they sold him the property, or work with them in the development of those facilities. He noted that John Lewis is his engineer and Sympoetica will be his design planners. Mr. Turner believed Greenwood Road could be straightened to some degree, a connection could be made to Route 50, and improvements could be made to Sulphur Springs Road. Mr. Turner did not think it was in the best interests of the County to remove this property from the SWSA and the UDA Area #6 Stephens City area. Removing County policy lines from within Town of Stephens City. Joint Land use Plan provides guidance for the Town's future annexation and provision of sewer and water. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary of UDA/SWSA. There were no public comments regarding this area. • Area #7 Kernstown Area. Route 11 South and Shady Elm Drive. Lane use designation conformance. Interstate 81 consistent western boundary to the UDA. Policy language recognition of Echo Village residential area to be noted within the plan. There were no public comments regarding this area. Area #8 Route 50 West at the Route 37 interchange. Land use designation conformance. There were no public comments regarding this area. Chairman Wilmot next called for anyone who wished to speak generally on the concept of the modifications with any comments not already made. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Kriz asked the staff to explain how the original boundaries were drawn when the UDA was first established for Frederick County. Mr. Ruddy replied that back in 1998, when the original UDA boundaries were established, it was evaluated and based upon drainage areas; not all of each drainage area was included, but fundamentally, it revolved around drainage areas. Mr. Ruddy said since that time when the UDA concept was created, there have been various modifications and they have followed different consistent boundaries. In some cases it was roads, in Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1790 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -10- other cases property lines, and still other cases, drainage areas. Commissioner Triplett asked what would be the result if no boundary modifications are made. Mr. Ruddy said there are areas of inconsistency between the boundaries and the underlying land use plan and that is probably the biggest concern, along with evaluating applications as they come forward In addition, Mr. Ruddy said there would not be that foundation to enable other things to happen with the UDA Study. Mr. Ruddy emphasized that the land use designations, be they industrial, commercial, residential, and in some cases rural areas, would not be changed through this process. Commissioner Triplett said he believed there was an underlying feeling by the property owners that a property removed from the UDA would be devalued and there is a concern they may not be able to do what they would like with their property. Commissioner Unger pointed out there were four areas with no public comments which consisted of about 1,300 acres. Commissioner Unger said if someone purchased land because it was in the UDA, he found it difficult to support an action that would remove this classification from their property. He was in support of getting the boundary lines straightened out, but was concerned about the possible affect on the property owners. Commissioner Light suggested for the CPPA process this year, the Commission should not act on properties within Areas 1, 2 4, and 5 because they were probably in some active application process. He commented that some of the persons who spoke this evening had alluded to this fact. He said if a property is under any type of active application process, it should not be acted upon until after the Commission gets past either their application or the CPPA amendment process. Commissioner Light said that if the application fails through the amendment process, essentially what the Board of Supervisors has determined is the amendmentwas not appropriate. Then afterward, it could be considered for boundary line adjustment. Commissioner Morris believed the land use issues need to be reconciled; however, he agreed • with those who expressed the opinion that approving the changes without consideration of the CPPA applications coming forward was a bit premature and may prejudice the review of those proposals. He suggested that the uncontested areas go forward and not be held up. Commissioner Kriz also agreed to move ahead on the areas that were not contested and those areas that were contested could be tabled or delayed until after the CPPA process has gone through. Commissioner Mohn commented that even though there were some areas where no one stood before the Commission and contested something specifically, the Commission may be remiss to assume there are not active applications or there are not concerned interests about those particular boundaries. He stated that, from an equity perspective, if the Commission is considering tabling any, then all of the areas should be tabled. Commissioner Mohn said he understood the intent and agreed with many of the boundary "clean- ups" and believed this would happen through the UDA,Study process; however, he was concerned about sacrificing some of the integrity of the UDA Study and the CPPA process as the County goes forward. Commissioner Mohn then made a motion to table the entire UDA/SWSA Boundary Modification package until not only after the CPPA process has concluded, but also to coincide with the conclusion of the UDA study, or at least until the subcommittee is deeper into the UDA Study, in order to allow the underlying land uses to be examined and everything is able to be brought together comprehensively. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. The vote to table was unanimous. (Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1791 Minutes of June 21.2006 -11- • Conditional Use Permit #10-05 of William Broy for an off - premise business sign. This property is located at 3605 Valley Pike and is further identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -84 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Commissioner Manuel said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry, reported that this conditional use permit (CUP) request is for a proposed off - premise business sign along the Route 11 South corridor, which requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Henry said the proposed use will be located on roughly one -third acre in the B3 (industrial Transition) Zoning District. He said the sign will be required to be set back from the property line ten feet and contain no more than 50 square -feet in area, as agreed upon by the applicant. This will be a monument -style sign. Mr. Henry explained that the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically states that off -site signs along Route 11 South shall be prohibited and/or limited to monument style; the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for off - premise business signs in the B3 Zoning District with an approved CUP. Mr. Henry stated that based upon the size, type, and location of the proposed sign, staff believes it will not deteriorate the character of the area. Mr. Henry next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find the request to be appropriate. Commissioner Kriz asked the staff if this request was the same one brought before the Commission about two months ago. Mr. Henry said it was the same CUP, but the proposed sign has been modified. Mr. William E. Broy, the owner and applicant, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Broy if the proposed CUP was for him to construct a monument -style sign and lease space for the businesses in Commonwealth Court. Mr. Broy replied yes. Commissioner Mohn asked Mr. Broy if he was comfortable with the condition that he could only lease sign space to businesses on Commonwealth Court. Mr. Broy said there are a limited number of businesses existing on Commonwealth Court; however, in the future, Commonwealth Court will connect to an available 12 acres further back and possibly, another 23 acres. Mr. Broy said all this acreage will connect as part of a business complex. Mr. Broy said he would be willing to lease sign space for any of those businesses back there. Mr. Broy said he understood he could only advertise for the businesses in Commonwealth Business Park. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Morris commented he would feel differently about this request were it the businesses themselves who were seeking off - premise advertising. Since this was not the case, he was not in favor of the CUP. Commissioner Morris then moved to recommend denial of the CUP. The motion failed, however, due to the lack of a second to the motion. A new motion was made by Commissioner Light to recommend approval of the CUP with the • conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1792 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -12- BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby • recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit of William Broy for an off - premise business sign at 3605 Valley Pike with the following conditions: 1. The sign shall be a monument -style sign, 50 square -feet in area and no more than ten feet in height. 2. This is classified as a development entrance sign and is to provide advertisements strictly for businesses along Commonwealth Court. 3. The sign is not to display any material that would constitute it as being classified as a directional sign (i.e. messages concerning the distance or direction to particular locations). 4. The sign will consist of a brick base and shall be properly maintained. 5. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Unger, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn NO: Morris ABSTAIN Manuel i (Note: Commissioner Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #06 -06 for White Hall Business Park, submitted by Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc. for a Caterpillar maintenance and sales facility. The properties are located approximately 950 feet west from Interchange 323 off I -81, approximately 2,560 feet south of Rest Church Road, along Zachary Ann Lane. The parcels are further identified with P.I.N.s 33-9-6,33-9.7,33-9-8 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the preliminary master development plan for the Whitehall Business Park is a proposal to develop approximately 20 acres of M 1 (Light Industrial) zoned property to accommodate a facility known as Alban Tractor. Ms. Perkins said the proffers for the site state the applicant will construct Zachary Ann Lane to Lot 6 in accordance with the previously - approved road plan; the applicant will create a lane - striping plan for Rest Church Road in conjunction with VDOT to help improve traffic conditions; the applicant will continue a 50 -foot woodlands buffer along the southern property line; and the applicant will provide a woodlands strip along Lot 8 and I -81, varying between five and 20 feet, to help screen the • property. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1793 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -13- Ms. Perkins said the master development plan (MDP) is consistent with the requirements of the • zoning ordinance and has addressed all of the staff's concerns. Commissioner Morris was interested in knowing how long the tree -save area would remain in place and if it could be removed if Lot 8 would be developed at some future time. Ms. Perkins replied that the proffers for the rezoning pertain to the entire site, and dictate that this 50 -foot strip can not be touched unless the applicant revises the proffers. She said if they wanted to take out the trees, the applicant would have to come back and revise the MDP. Mr. David Lellock with Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc. was representing the owner and applicant, JCA IV White Hall, LLC. Mr. Lellock said the project has remained the same since it was presented for rezoning in October of 2005. There were no public comments regarding the proposed MDP. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 406 -06 for White Hall Business Park, submitted by Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc., for a Caterpillar maintenance and sales facility. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) ® DISCUSSION PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence stated the Bylaws Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has reviewed and made several recommendations to modify the Commission's Bylaws and to establish the Rules and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission Mr. Lawrence said the Rules and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission is a guideline to help Commission members understand the expectations as they fulfill their roles on the Planning Commission. He said this document is not a part of the Bylaws, but is a free - standing document. Mr. Lawrence then proceeded to give the Commission a brief summary of the document, which basically dealt with application communications between members of the Commission and between the Planning Staff and the Commission. He said there was a Commissioner's development section involving continuing education, leadership development, etc. Mr. Lawrence said some of the Bylaw changes refer to new member education which would involve a meeting with the staff to explain how the Commission operates, what the Comprehensive Policy Plan and other documents are, and other issues involving the role of individual members. Commission members had questions for the staff on various sections of the Rules and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission and the Bylaws. Mr. Lawrence said he would bring the documents back to the Commission on the next available schedule for the Planning Commission to officially vote. F_ I L Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1794 Minutes of June 21, 2006 -14- 6 ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, w "AA-t- M. Wilmot, Chairman Secretary C� Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1795 Minutes of June 21, 2006