Loading...
PC_12-06-06_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 December 6, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; City of Winchester Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Candice E. Perkins, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the minutes of November 1, 2006 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee — 11/27/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee was asked by the Planning Department to review the transportation proffers for the Woodside Commercial Center rezoning. Upon • discussion, the Transportation Committee believed it was not appropriate for them to be involved in rezoning Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1916 Minutes of December 6, 2006 -2- applications and they voted unanimously to send the rezoning on to the Planning Commission with no • recommendation. Other items acted on by the Transportation Committee included: 2) the committee voted unanimously to endorse the Revenue Sharing Project Application for the Tevis Street extension from Russell 150, LLC to Route 522; 3) an MPO activity update was provided; 4) the committee voted to endorse funds for survey services for the Brucetown and Hopewell Road intersection realignment; 5) monthly current event articles relating to a lack in State transportation funding were reviewed; 6) a discussion ensued about accidents and congestion at the intersection of Welltown Pike and Route 11. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 11/21/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB endorsed a requestby staff to make application for a grant from the American Battlefield Protection Program for the seven -acre Star Fort site; the HRAB reviewed an update to the generalized development plan for the Willow Run rezoning and, along with reiterating previous comments from a year ago, they expressed view shed concerns and encouraged the applicant to submit the White's house to the National Registry; and, the HRAB offered support of a rezoning from RP to RA by GreyWolfe, Inc., a down- zoning of 222 acres, owned by the Civil War Preservation Trust. Economic Development Commission — 12/01/06 Mtg. • Commissioner Kerr reported that the EDC acted on the FY 08 budget proposal and the second quarter project list. Other items discussed were the Direct Marketing Update, the Commuter - Capture Program, and the Regional Work Force Study. Sanitation Authority — 11/21/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of October was about four inches; operations remain normal at all plants; water production was about six mgd; growth rate for 2006 was 6.4 increase with 750 new connections. Aericultural & Forestal District Advisory Committee — 11/30/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the committee discussed property additions and deletions to the three existing districts. The committee recommended approval of the addition of 123 acres and the removal of 450 acres to the South Frederick District, reducing the total acreage of the district to 5,878 acres; the committee recommended approval of the addition of 203 acres to the Double Church District, increasing the total acreage of the district to 963 acres; and, the committee recommended approval of the addition of 68.5 acres to the Red Bud District, increasing the total acreage of the district to 903.5 acres. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1917 Minutes of December 6, 2006 -3- 0 CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #16 -06 for the Tasker Road and Warrior Road Proffer Revisions, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to revise proffers concerning the rezoning of 31.83 acres to B2 (Business General) District. The proffer revision addresses the hours of operation on the property. The properties are located in the northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Route 642 and Route 1141. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 75 -A -104, 75- A -104E, 75- A -105A, 75-A-1 05B, 75- A -105C, and 75- A -105D in both the Opequon and Shawnee Magisterial Districts. Action — Recommended Approval with Stipulation Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #02 -98, a rezoning of 35 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) District • and the resulting commercial properties provided the core for the Tasker Road Land Bays area, which is currently under development today. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has submitted the current rezoning application to modify the proffers associated with the original rezoning, specifically, as it pertains to the hours of operation for the commercial properties. He stated that each of the current landowners of property contained within the original rezoning application are a part of this request and have signed the proffer statement. Mr. Ruddy reported that the applicant has proffered to restrict the hours of operation to remain closed frorn 12:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. and the net result would be for the businesses to open one hour earlier in the morning and to remain open one hour later in the evening. He said the applicant has maintained the proffer addressing the transportation improvements provided with the original rezoning; the restricted uses remain the same; and one proffer was stricken, which was the payment for fire and rescue services, because that has already been paid. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing the multiple property owners in the request. Mr. Wyatt said that one of the recent purchasers of a portion of the property, H. N. Funkhouser with their Handi -Mart stores and Dunkin Doughnuts, who generally co -brand together, are requesting the ability to change the hours of operation. Mr. Wyatt said that Dunkin Doughnuts is a full - service breakfast and lunch facility and they wanted to open at 5:00 a.m. to provide service for morning commuters; they also felt that staying open until midnight was appropriate for the Handi -Mart, a convenience store. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Wyatt to describe the buffering between the commercial development and the adjacent residential housing. Mr. Wyatt said the buffer is incorporated on the B2 properties; there is a 50 -foot setback from the property line moving in and a full - screen buffer, consisting of a six -foot high opaque element, and three trees per ten linear feet along the entire property line. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. • Wyatt about the possibility of using methods to minimize the amount of light diffusion onto the houses behind. Mr. Wyatt said the ordinance requirements prohibit light spill -over onto adjoining properties and the Planning Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1918 Minutes of December 6, 2006 Staff has been requesting more detailed lighting plans to ensure that light spill -over does not occur. • Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. James L. Stevens, a resident at 128 Spanish Oak Road in Autumn Glen, the adjoining residential development, said he was the Vice President of the Autumn Glen Homeowners Association, consisting of 132 homes with over 280 property owners. Mr. Stevens said that the Autumn Glen homeowners will be directly affected by the proposed change in operating hours. He noted that the CVS on the comer of Tasker and Warrior Drive is a good neighbor, with hours of 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., and utilizing low lighting. Mr. Stevens said that although the Funkhouser facility will be across the street, they are concerned about "day - light' lighting at night, noise from automobiles and delivery trucks, trash pickup, the congregation of people in parking areas, and dumping. Mr. Stevens said they also had serious concerns about the buffers that border Lynn Drive, the 100 block of Spanish Oak, and the cul -de -sac near Warrior Drive; he said the developer has knocked downnumerous trees, removed mostly mature trees, and left spindly little trees, which are totally unacceptable as noise and light barriers to their cormnunity. He was concerned that the uses and hours of operation permitted for the properties on the east side of Warrior Drive would set a precedent for the uses and hours on the west side of Warrior Drive. Additionally, Mr. Stevens said that 30 of the most recently developed homes on Spanish Oak Drive are occupied by seniors, aging from 70 and plus. He was concerned about businesses opening at 5:00 a.m. and noise generated until midnight closing because the seniors are very sensitive to that kind of disturbance and it would most likely result in many calls to the association. Mr. Neil Ramsey, a resident of Autumn Glen, said the 50 -foot buffer behind him is basically a wetland; he was concerned about the future grading plans and whether his property could be flooded. Mr. Ramsey was concerned about unsightly dumpsters and vermin that would possibly result from food service • establishments. He was also concerned that a building could be constructed 75 feet from his home. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioners and staff first discussed the development on the east side of Warrior Drive and whether the staff believed the approved lighting plans were sufficient to protect those properties zoned for residential use; it was noted that many of the adjacent residential lots on the east side had not yet been purchased. Commission members also expressed concern about the age - restricted community on the west side of Warrior Drive, and described it as a quiet community. Commission members commented that the commercial area on this side was quite large and could easily accommodate a 24 -hour operation, such as a grocery store. They asked staff how the existing residents on the west side could be protected. Commission members suggested the possibility of approving the longer hours of operation for the development on the east side, but prohibiting the longer hours on the west side. Commission and staff also talked about whether the residential areas had developed before the rezoning for the commercial area. Commission members expressed concern about protecting the existing residences in this area and advised the developer to be compassionate towards their neighbors. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the extended hours of operation for the land bays on the east side of Warrior Drive, but to keep the existing proffers and hours of operation for the land bays on the west side of Warrior Drive. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1919 Minutes of December 6, 2006 -5- Rezoning #19 -06 for Seefried Property, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 27.24 • acres from MHI (Mobile Home Community) to Ml (Light Industrial) District and 48.14 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District, totaling 75.38 acres with proffers for industrial use. The properties are located west of 1 -81, adjacent to Fort Collier Industrial Park and Arcadia Mobile Home Park, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Fort Collier Road (Rt.1322) and Brooke Road (Rt.1328). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 54 -A -89 and 54 -A -91 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Stipulations Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the development would be accessed off a new easement the applicant stated they have obtained through the Winchester Pasta site; the proposed new easement has not yet been provided to or reviewed by the staff, but the proffers have been revised to state that the project entrance will be on Brooke Road. Ms. Perkins said the project lies within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. She stated that the requested MI Zoning could be consistent with the existing use in the area because the majority of the site is surrounded by the Ft. Collier Industrial Park, as well as Interstate 81. Ms. Perkins said that while the land use proposed in this application is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, there were still a number of issues that needed to be resolved by the applicant pertaining to transportation improvements called for in the applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conclusions. She proceeded to identify those particular issues for the Commission. Ms. Perkins said the staff has expressed concern that the applicant's mitigation efforts fall short of the County's Level of Service (LOS) "C" expectations and reflected a LOS of "D" or below in some areas. Ms. Perkins stated that the staff has questions as to whether the $400,000 proffered for road improvements was • sufficient for the signalization and turn lanes necessary to implement the improvements identified in the applicant's TIA. She noted that construction of road improvements are typically the applicant's responsibility and the only improvement the applicant is actually constructing is a turn lane at their site entrance; she said it was uncertain whether the County could obtain the other necessary off -site improvements not mentioned in the proffers. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., a consultant with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was representing the applicant, Seefried Properties, Inc. Regarding the staffs comments concerning LOS issues, Mr. Maddox stated that this project will be a small percentage of the overall traffic in this area and by the Year 2010, many of these intersections will be at a LOS "E" and "F" even without this proposed project. Mr. Maddox stated that the $400,000 proffered will improve the intersections directly around their site; however, it may also seed a grant application from the County and VDOT for potential industrial access funds, possibly doubling the original amount to $850,000. In response to a Commissioner's question about the proffered capon square footage, Mr. Maddox replied it was based on transportation issues. He said that although the ITE produces 5,700 tpd in the M 1 Zone, they have not experienced that amount in previous M I -zoned projects, he said traffic from this site will be a third or less of that number. A Commission member suggested that the cap on square footage be removed because of the need for industrial use in the County and, in addition, a signalization agreement be put in place at Brook Road and Fort Collier Road. Mr. Maddox replied that they were in negotiations to purchase a cross easement for access out to Park Center Drive, which would alleviate the need for a signalization agreement at Brook Road and Fort Collier Road. Because of the different entrance alternatives, Mr. Maddox said there was uncertainty about what locations they should be putting money into. He pointed out that if the money was doubled with matching funds, improvements could be done in a number of different locations, depending on the need. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1920 Minutes of December 6, 2006 a Although concern was expressed among the Commission about the uncertainty of the • background and build -out LOS, they did like the concept of the proposal to provide funds directly to VDOT and allowing VDOT to determine where the service is needed, instead of the applicant committing to a specific intersection. The Commission also requested that the applicant provide language for a plat of extinguishment for the 50 -foot right -of -way connection across the jail property to Fort Collier Road, if that connection would not be needed. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT stated that because of the 5,700 vehicle trips per day possible and the considerable background traffic, VDOT preferred the flexibility of the availability of funds rather than identifying specific locations for improvements at this time. Mr. Ingram said VDOT was uncertain whether the amount would be sufficient or not, but they would pursue economic development funding. He commented that as the project develops, VDOT will have a better idea about the amount and geometry of traffic. Mr. Ingram favored the idea of accessing Park Center Drive, which would alleviate traffic going through Fort Collier. However, he did not think the connection would necessarily eliminate the need for a signal at the intersection of Brook and Fort Collier roads. Mr. John Bishop, the County's Transportation Planner, believed the signalization agreement would probably be needed for the intersection of Brook Road and Fort Collier, without the Park Center connection, particularly because of the number of turning movements already occurring through the intersection. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. Cotmnission members said they would not be in favor of the project without the signalization agreement; they were interested in seeing the signalization agreement as well as the $400,000 contribution. . Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommended to approve the rezoning with the inclusion of a signalization agreement for the intersection of Brook Road and Fort Collier Road and eliminate the cap on the square footage for the project. (Note: Commissioners Morris, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #17 -06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (Business General) District and 8.55 acres from Ml (Light Industrial) District to B2 (Business General) District, totaling 31 acres with proffers for a retail center. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of I -81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Rt.11). These properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 43 -A -99 and 43 -A -100 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. An additional property subject to the proffers, but not requested to be rezoned is located east of I -81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of I -81 and Martinsburg Pike (Rt.11); this property is further identified with P.I.N. 43 -A -98 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that there were two previous rezonings on this site, one in 2001 and the other in 2004; she pointed out the areas requested for rezoning in this most recent request. Ms. • Eddy reported that although the applicant wants to develop the site for a shopping center, the applicant already has the ability to do so on this site with its existing zoning. She said the site is within the Sewer and Water Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1921 Minutes of December 6, 2006 Service Area (SW SA), it is within theNortheast Land Use Plan ( NELUP), and the proposed mix of industrial and • commercial facilities are generally in conformance with the NELUP. Ms. Eddy said that transportation was the most significant element of this rezoning proposal; the Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP both identify Route 37 on a portion of this property and a future Route 37/ I -81 interchange will also impact the property. She noted that the applicant has agreed not to build on this portion of the site for a limited time period; however, the by -right scenario for this site does not include Route 37. She noted that both the Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP show a major collector road through the site to the Carroll Industrial Park. The applicant is showing a collector road on their property; however, it is in a different location and in a different configuration than what is shown in the NELUP. Ms. Eddy stated that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using two different scenarios; however, neither scenario included the North Stephenson Development, a large industrial site directly across the street, and neither modeled the worst - case scenarios. She pointed out that the average daily trips (ADT) would be approximately 28,000 vehicles per day; however, when the original rezoning was approved, the applicant's TIA indicated there would be approximately 9,700 vehicle trips per day (tpd). Also, a Level of Service (LOS) "C" is not being maintained as required. Ms. Eddy continued, stating that the proffer statement within the Commission's agenda packet was dated November 7, 2006; however, the County attorney's comments had not yet been received. She said another proffer statement, dated November 29, 2006, was hand - delivered from the applicant to the Commission. She said she did receive comments from the County attorney only yesterday and she provided the Commission with those this evening. Ms. Eddy added that just this morning, she received another new proffer statement, dated December 5, 2006, which she had not examined in detail. Ms. Eddy then proceeded to review the November 29, 2006 proffer statement with the Commission. • Ms. Eddy concluded her presentation by saying that the fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. She said the by -right development provides a collector road as planned in the NELUP and provides two traffic signals; the proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free - flowing collector road. She said the proposed rezoning provides a total of three traffic signals and $250,000 towards road improvements; neither scenario truly provides land for Route 37. Ms. Eddy added that the proposed rezoning calls for greater B2 use, which will generate more traffic; she said that given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic that will be generated. Commissioners commented that it may be appropriate to table the application, since neither the staff or the Commission has had the opportunity to review the latest proffer. Another Commissioner asked the staff what properties have already dedicated or reserved land for Route 37; the staff named about sevenproperties along the path of Route 37. A member of the Commission asked the County's transportation planner if and when the centerline for Route 37 had been set. Transportation Planner, Mr. John Bishop, stated that the centerline for the main trunk was set and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April of 2006; the ramps are part of the second phase, which is authorized by the Board, but is not yet finished. Mr. Bishop said this property would be affected by the ramps and those ramps are not yet outlined. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was representing the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application. Mr. Wyatt provided the Commission with some history of this site. He stated that the idea for this site is to develop more of a retail -type road system to present a commercial presence; he said they were • anticipating a Lowes and Target with support retail and restaurants. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1922 Minutes of December 6, 2006 CM Mr.Michael Glickman, Transportation Engineer with Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates, Inc. • (PHR &A), came forward to explain the thinking behind the seeping for the traffic study and some of the assumptions made during his analysis. Mr. Glickman said the intersection at Red Bud fails under existing conditions; he said they have proffered a signal at this location, which would be beneficial and bring this intersection up to acceptable levels. In addition, he responded to a concern raised about existing traffic congestion along Route 11. Mr. Glickman's evaluation of the problem centered on inadequate synchronization of signals near the Crown, Cork & Seal facility; he said their plan is to examine the signalization and see how it can be optimized. A member of the Commission observed that this current rezoning and the 2001/2004 rezoning basically had the same land use intensity, yet there is a disparity between the numbers of vehicle trips between the two. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to review some of the significant points in the proffer statement; he proceeded to describe the differences between the current proffer as opposed to the one presented for the by -right development. Recapping his discussion, he said the new transportation proffers still provides the Route 11 improvements, the ability to get a road back to the FEMA site, it provides an additional traffic signal, it provides for a synchronization analysis and payment for retiming of signalization, and it provides $250,000 in cash proffers. Mr. Wyatt next discussed the proffers dealing with right -of -way issues; he said the language was revised to reserve right -of -way along I -81 and Route l l without any financial compensation. Regarding the Route 37 issue, Mr. Wyatt said the proffer was modified to provide for a 14 -acre area for proposed Route 37; he said the County will have the opportunity, because it is a reservation, to purchase that right -of -way, and they will not build any structures in that area for a ten -year period. He explained that the revisions to the November 29 proffers reduced the square footage and it increased the no- build. Mr. Wyatt suggested that if the Commission chose to approve the November 29 proffers, the Commission should add the I -81 and Route 1 I reservations that would go to a dedication plat, instead of a reservation plat. Members of the Commission believed this was an improvement over the by -right proposal; however, they were not pleased that a reservation for Route 37 was not offered by the applicant. It was pointed out that all of the other properties in the path of Route 37 had already reserved and dedicated right -of -way without a time limit. Also pointed out was the fact that this 14 -acre area was Iloodplain land and would not be a high - value property; they were concerned why the developers, who were local, wouldn't dedicate the property to the County. Other Commissioners thought the ten -year dedication was reasonable and believed it may prompt the County to move forward with the Route 37 project. A member of the Commission questioned the language in the proffer and asked why it did not simply state the road would be connected to the FEMA site, rather than the road would connect to the cul -de -sac. Mr. Wyatt replied that they would refine the wording to clearly state the road will physically touch Parcel 111, because this is what is intended. Senior Planner, Susan Eddy, returned to the podium and stated that the County's version of the by -right development shows a proffered road at a certain location; she said that the applicant's version of the by- right development does not have the road in the same location. Ms. Eddy added that she did not understand how the applicant could state that the reservation for Route 37 goes beyond ten years because the proffer states that the record owners, "do hereby agree that for a period of ten years from the date of the approval of the rezoning, they will not build upon the tract of land containing 14 acres more or less, proposed to be used as part of the Route 37 Bypass in Frederick County; however, any taking of the property will be compensated at fair market value." • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1923 Minutes of December 6, 2006 WE A member of the Commission commented about the proposed self - storage facility in the • northwest corner of the by -right development and questioned the fact that B3 zoning would enable restaurant, indoor entertainment center, or office park use. Ms. Eddy replied that the self- storage use is a low traffic generator compared to office or restaurant uses. Mr. John A. Bishop, County Transportation Planner, came forward to comment on the action that was taken by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) regarding the I -81 widening. Mr. Bishop said the widening itself was not abandoned, but the CTB endorsed a recommendation by VDOT to drop the Star Solutions proposal; he said they have not scrapped the I -81 widening, but they have recognized that it will not be uniform widening and the study is ongoing. Mr. Bishop next answered questions from the Commission regarding the entrance and exit points. A Commissioner asked Mr. Bishop how the LOS for the site would be affected when the original proposal called for less than 10,000 tpd and the new proposal is calling for 30,000 tpd. Mr. Bishop replied that it would result in significant degradation; he said the functionality in the whole area would virtually be zero during peak hours. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT was called to the podium to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Ingram said that VDOT is not satisfied with what is being presented. He said the proposed plan was approved approximately three years ago and since that time, a considerable amount of surrounding development has occurred. He said that since the rezoning of Rutherford Farm was approved, Omps has come on board and that traffic was not included in Rutherford's TIA; he said that VDOT has some issues with what is being proposed and the additional traffic load Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium and requested that the Commission consider the November 29, 2006 proffer with the revisions offered and to act on their request this evening. Commissioner Oates expressed his concern that dedication of right -of -way for Route 37 was not included with this application. He also did not see a real benefit for this zoning over the existing zoning. Furthermore, the major collector road shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan has been obliterated by this new proposal. For those reasons, Commissioner Oates said he could not support the rezoning request and he recommended denial. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick Comity Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning # 17 -06 of Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) to B2 (Business General) and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) to 132 (Business General), totaling 31 acres, for a retail center. The vote was as follows YES (TO DENY) Unger, Manuel, Oates, Thomas, Kriz, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Watt, Triplett, Kerr (Note: Commissioners Morris, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1924 Minutes of December 6, 2006 -10- PUBLIC MEETING • Master Development Plan #14 -06 for Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Bury+Partners, to develop 59.65 acres of B2 (Business General) District and 95.57 acres of MI (Light Industrial) District for commercial and industrial uses. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of I -81, Exit 317, and Martinsburg Pike intersection. The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 43-A-98,43-A-99,43-A- 100, and 43 -A -111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the master development plan (MDP) for Rutherford Crossing is associated with the rezoning just previously heard by the Planning Commission, which was recommended to be denied. Ms. Perkins said the proposed MDP contains the FEMA site and shows Route 37. She noted that revised Power of Attorney forms will be needed because an incorrect date had been referenced. Ms. Perkins stated that issues regarding VDOT and Public Works comments still needed to be addressed, as well as the proffers included for Rezoning 406 -04, which are associated with the FEMA property. In addition, she said the zoning district buffer detail needs to be revised. Ms. Perkins further added that the applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 144 -24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow parcels located on Market Street, a private road, to be subdivided. Therefore, two recommendations are required for this MDP. Mr. Kevin Pullen with Bury+Partners was present to represent the owners for the Rutherford Crossing MDP. Mr. Pullen stated that they sought to stay in keeping with the general theme of the original road layout. He said that although the road is not shown in the same geometric design, it still has the same right -of- width and still connects to the adjacent property in the location shown on the previously- approved MDP. • Commissioner Oates commented that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to recommend approval of the MDP, since the previous rezoning was recommended for denial. Secondly, he said the road shown on the proposed MDP is not in the same configuration previously proffered, nor is it in the same configuration of the major collector road depicted on the County's Eastern Road Plan. Commissioner Oates pointed out that the two 90- degree turns introduced impedes the flow of traffic; he said a stop sign or signal would probably be installed at those locations and it would become an internal road instead of a major collector. Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Master Development Plan # 14 -06 for Rutherford Crossing, submitted by Bury+Partners, to develop 59.65 acres of B2 (Business General) District and 95.57 acres of M 1 (Light Industrial) District for commercial and industrial uses and does also recommend denial of the waiver request of Section 144- 24(C). Since we did not approve the rezoning application, this current MDP does not reflect the existing zoning requirements. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY) Unger, Watts, Manuel, Oates, Thomas, Kriz, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Triplett, Kerr • (Note: Commissioners Morris, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1925 Minutes of December 6, 2006 -11- • COMMISSION DISCUSSION 2007 -2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry, reported that the 2007 -2008 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County includes 54 capital projects, 17 of which are new projects and includes I 1 new transportation projects. Mr. Henry pointed out that transportation projects are new to the CIP and present a significant addition to the plan. He said the Code of Virginia now allows transportation projects to appear in the CIP and the Transportation Committee has approved the capital project requests included. Mr. Henry stated that the addition of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these projects; funding of projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing. Mr. Henry said that of the remaining six new projects, four new projects have been requested from the County public schools and two projects have been requested from the Handley Regional Library. He described those projects for the Commission. Mr. Henry said the draft CIP was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) at their meeting on November 13, 2006, and they endorsed the draft plan. Commissioner Oates, a member of the CPPS, said the CPPS thoroughly discussed the draft CIP and he was confident that the plan presented was an excellent one and believed the Commission should move it • forward. No issues of concern or questions were raised and the Planning Commission agreed to move the plan forward to the Board of Supervisors for discussion as presented. OTHER STAFF BRIEFING FOR PENDING REZONING APPLICATIONS Chairman Wilmot announced a staff briefing for Commission members concerning the pending rezoning application of Willow Run. She said the purpose of the briefing is for staff to deliver the information they have on this application before the Commission is in a public hearing environment. Chairman Wilmot suggested that the staff provide the Commission with the available dates and asked Commission members to get back to the staff as soon as possible. 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Chairman Wilmot announced that the 2007 Planning Commission Retreat will be held on • February 24, 2007, at the Wayside Inn in Middetown. She requested that all Commission members contact the staff by December 22, 2006, with items and issues they would like to discuss. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1926 Minutes of December 6, 2006 -12- 0 SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS Commissioner Oates said that during the Rutherford Crossing Rezoning hearing, the Commission heard the need for synchronization of traffic signals. Commissioner Oates asked that the Planning Commission direct the Transportation Planner to bring this item to the next Transportation Committee meeting so that work can being on synchronization. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, . �U JA-tx Wilmot, Chairman • R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 6, 2006 Page 1927