PC_12-20-06_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 20, 2006.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee 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; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C.
Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip E.
Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; and
City of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, 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; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; 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 Triplett, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's
meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 12/11/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the National Lutheran Home in the Round
Hill Corridor Area and methods for developing under a campus -style Comprehensive Plan. He said the south side
of Route 50 was included in the discussions, as well as architectural standards. Commissioner Light commented
that this is a new concept and the applicants are seeking further information. This was sent forward to the
Commission as a discussion item.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1931
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-2-
• Transportation Committee — 12/18/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that five items were discussed by the Transportation Committee.
1) The meeting schedule for 2007 was adopted with changes from the fourth Monday for the months of January,
May, November, and December. 2) A motion was unanimously passed to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors discontinue the transit service in Frederick County. 3) An MPO activity update included no
additional meetings for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan; the subcommittee in charge of the local
assistance projects is recommending that scoping work be undertaken by VDOT on the Rt. 37 interchange study
and the Route 11 access management study. 4) Articles of interest to the committee were distributed. 5) A
petition signed by 51 residents of 42 households was presented for the black- topping of the last 0.4 miles of
MacDonald Road (Rt. 1616). The entire road had been approved for blacktopping several years ago, but the
necessary easement could not be obtained for the last 0.4 miles. This is the situation with several prescriptive
roads in the county; the road may not meet current criteria to be high on the recommended list for paving even
though it had been previously approved. This situation is being addressed.
Sanitation Authority — 12/19/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of November was about 4.5 inches; all
plants were operating sufficiently, despite water from excess rainfall; water demand for November was about 5.8
mgd. Commissioner Unger stated that the Parkins Mill Wastewater Plant was discussed and the importance of
starting this project; he said many counties in Virginia are updating their plants because of the Chesapeake Bay
• Act. The bid received was about 20% higher than what was anticipated.
Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 12/18/06 Mtg.
Commissioner Ours reported the WPC granted authorization for the following plans to move
forward: the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum to construct a $10 million dollar, 26,000 square -foot facility
in Jim Barnett Park; a planned office and retail space on Cedar Creek Grade; a TGI Fridays restaurant on Tevis
Street; an office building on Pleasant Valley Road; and a commercial center on Papermill Road. Commissioner
Ours said the WPC also discussed definitions for boarding houses, rooming houses, and tourist houses; and they
are reviewing the introduction of zoning standards for the central part of Valley Avenue from Cedar Creek Grade
through a point slightly north of Bellview Avenue.
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1932
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-3-
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning 418 -06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 8.835 acres
from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers for commercial
and industrial uses. The property is located on the east side of Route 11, approximately 3,000 feet north
of Hopewell Road (Route 672), and is identified with P.I.N. 33- A -124A in the Stonewall Magisterial
District.
Action — Tabled for 90 Days
Commissioner Oates abstained from all discussion and voting due to a possible conflict of
interest.
Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the site is located within the County's Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) and is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan ( NELUP). She said the NELUP
designates this site for industrial land uses; however, the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to B3,
which is a heavy business district. She said the ordinance states the intent of the B3 District is to provide heavy
commercial activities, involving larger -scale marketing and wholesaling in locations which are separate from, but
in the vicinity of, business and industrial areas. Ms. Perkins noted that the B3 District could be generally
consistent with the industrial land use planned by the NELUP, provided that many of the commercial uses allowed
in the B3 District are prohibited from this site. She said that while the B3 District allows certain lighter industrial
uses permitted in the M 1 District, such as warehousing and wholesaling, the B3 District also allows for a variety
of B2 uses that would not be consistent with the industrial designation called for in the Comprehensive Policy
Plan, for example, general offices, amusement and recreational services operated indoors, garden supply /retail
• sales, and gasoline stations.
Ms. Perkins next reviewed the applicant's proffer statement and noted there were still some
issues that needed to be resolved. In particular, Ms. Perkins said a number of transportation improvements were
called for by the applicant's TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis), and the applicant has provided a monetary
contribution rather than actually committing to constructing the suggested improvements. Referring to the $100
per vehicle trip monetary proffer dedicated for transportation improvements and right -of-way acquisition, she said
it is unclear if the right -of -way is available to expand the intersection and if the amount of funds provided would
be sufficient. She said the proposed funds do not solve any of the problems indicated in the TIA and do nothing
to increase the LOS (Level of Service) necessary for the project. Furthermore, she noted that the transportation
funds offered in the proffers must be utilized within a limited time period; otherwise the funds are to be returned
to the applicant. Ms Perkins said this presents a challenge because the County would need to fund the remainder
of the necessary improvements and to guarantee that improvements are completed and proffered funds are spent
within the limited State Code - delineated time period. She said that under the proposed scenario, the site could
develop without the required improvements to the transportation network and the network would be failing while
the site continues to be developed.
Ms. Perkins stated that some of the additional conunercial -type uses that could be proffered out
with this rezoning would include general offices, amusement and recreational services, and gas stations to insure
that the intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is implemented. She said the applicant has proffered out retail
truck stops and has limited gasoline pumps to 12 or less, but has not prohibited the sales of diesel fuel to over -
the -road trucks. She commented that the staff believes gasoline stations do not fit in with the industrial intent of
the area and if this use is left in, consideration should be made for diesel fuel sales to trucks.
• Commissioner Kriz had questions on whether the monetary contribution was sufficient for
transportation improvements and how much time the County had to spend the proffered money. Ms. Perkins
replied that the County would receive the money when the site plan is submitted and then, the County would have
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1933
Minutes of December 20, 2006
ME
• seven years after that date to utilize the funds.
Commissioner Unger suggested that if a use was identified for a particular site and the trips
calculated on the proposed use, then the developer could contribute that calculated amount of money and satisfy
the County's needs. He noted that if the use generates 10,000 trips and the developer is willing to proffer $100
per vehicle, the County should be able to determine if that amount is sufficient to take care of the roads.
The County's Transportation Planner, Mr. John A. Bishop, stated that even if a large traffic
volume is assumed for a particular use, $100 per trip will not create enough funds to satisfy all of the problems by
itself. Mr. Bishop said it was his understanding that the applicant developed the proffer this way recognizing that
as a smaller site, it would be very hard to create a proffer that will fully implement all that is needed in this area.
On the other hand, a light use, generating very few trips, would have a much lower impact; unfortunately, with the
Brucetown Road location, the County already has a situation that's nearly over capacity. He said that virtually
anything added would create an impact.
Commissioners had questions on how much money was needed to pay for the improvements the
County determined should be made. They asked if there was any type of established guideline a developer would
have to meet.
Mr. Bishop replied that nothing has yet been developed in terms of a guideline or base amount
that the County would accept. He said traditionally, with rezoning in the County, it has been expected that the
developers will implement the improvements shown as needed by their TIA; as a protection to the citizens of the
County, the County demands that the TIA is modeled to the highest traffic generation allowed by the rezoning
classification, because it can vary widely between allowed uses. Mr. Bishop stated that with this particular
rezoning, the TIA shows that Woodside would have to be paved the length of the property, there would need to be
a right -turn lane heading north and a left -turn access lane, improvements were needed to the signalization on
Woodside, as well as signalization and turn-lane improvements at the Brucetown- Hopewell Road intersection.
It was Mr. Bishop's opinion that this was an innovative approach that the applicant developed to
attempt to address the fact that his one rezoning is rather small to address all of these improvements; it was
developed to offer a solution to begin building a pot of funds. Mr. Bishop pointed out that if this is considered to
be the way to handle this type of situation, the issue becomes one where the emphasis is placed back onto the
County as the next rezoning along that corridor is considered. He said the key trigger is whether or not that
continued pattern will work as other rezonings come in. Otherwise, this will do very little on its own to address
the needed impacts. It was recognized that there are no large tracts in this corridor. Mr. Bishop said it really does
hinge upon what is done with succeeding rezonings. He noted that the scheduled improvements for that area are
described within the MPO's (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Plan and the Eastern Road Plan; therefore, a
guideline for the needed improvements in that corridor are based on what is modeled to occur in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Recognizing that the County did not currently have a formulated policy on how smaller rezonings
could contribute to an overall improvement plan, Commissioner Light said the County should be able to provide
any applicant with a minimum standard for a monetary contribution. Mr. Bishop believed such a policy would
need to be developed very carefully. He said this particular rezoning came through fairly quickly after the
beginning discussions, particularly with the Brucetown- Hopewell Road intersection. He commented that it was a
bit ahead of ongoing work being done by the Transportation Committee and the MPO. Mr. Bishop said that
based on the calculations he received, he didn't have a particular problem with $100 per trip; however, he would
question any lower amount.
C ,
J
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1934
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-5-
• A Commission member asked which governmental body would undertake the task of studying
the issues and make the decisions. Mr. Bishop said that if the Transportation Committee is tasked by the Board
of Supervisors to develop a financing plan for the corridor, they would be more than happy to take on that task; he
noted that there were a number of different strategies that could be used.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that although the $100 per trip is probably
appropriate, the staff has not yet studied the values. Mr. Lawrence said the trigger is recognizing that a single
contribution will not solve the problem and other funds will be needed. He also noted that in the past, the
applicant has constructed the improvements and the staff had simply checked with VDOT to make sure the
improvements were accomplished. Under this new scenario, the County staff would have to be the project
managers and provide construction services to get the projects constructed. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that the
staff has not yet studied the ramifications, nor have they studied whether this is an appropriate value. Mr.
Lawrence stated that just last week, the Board of Supervisors authorized the staff to enter into a contract to
conduct design work for the relocation and improvements at the Brucetown/ Hopewell/ Route 11 intersection. He
said that in the near future, the county staff will be engaged in engineering services at this location to determine
what road improvements are necessary and what the true cost will be.
Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward.
Ms. Trudy Dixon, representing GreyWolfe, Inc. on behalf of the property owners, said a
spreadsheet was included with the application detailing how they calculated the $100 per vehicle trip and how
they estimated the cost of widening Route 11 and the realignment of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. She said
the cost was estimated at $5.1 million dollars and the ITE manual indicates 51.8 trips per acre per day. Ms.
Dixon next addressed the concerns raised by the staff. She believed the intent of the B3 (Industrial Transition)
• Zoning was to allow for a less intensive industrial use to take place between commercial and industrial properties.
She explained that this property borders Route 1 I and is in the proximity of several homes; she noted that the
property is too small to be an industrial park, and is unable to utilize the railroad to the east. Therefore, they
believed a less- intense use, available in B3, would be appropriate for this area. She said this would create a
transition from the EM -zoned property to the east, towards the future commercial uses to the west, as shown in
the NELUP. She said the staff has suggested that uses such as general office should be proffered out; however,
this is the type of use that creates a transitional area. She said if the commercial uses of B3 were proffered out,
then they are simply left with a less - attractive MI Zoning.
Addressing the issue of transportation, Ms. Dixon said the trip generation rate applied to the site
was based on a maximum use of retail, which is specified in the rezoning package as the worst -case scenario, and
the average daily trips (ADT) for a shopping center were used for the TIA. However, the highest form of retail
allowed in the B3 is a home improvement super store, such as Lowes or Home Depot, and that use only generates
about 40% of the traffic associated with a shopping center. She noted that retail uses, such as grocery and
department stores, are not permitted in the B3 Zoning; therefore, the traffic report provided to the County is over-
inflated by approximately 60 %. Furthermore, she said the office uses more likely to occur at this location would
only generate 825 tpd, compared to the 5,633 tpd shown in the TIA.
In regards to mitigating the traffic impact, Ms. Dixon said they strived to provide a workable
solution. She said they initially proffered a signalization agreement; however, VDOT requested a cash proffer
instead. She said they have tried to find the appropriate solution through discussions with the Planning Staff, the
Transportation Committee, and with other property owners in the area who were interested in rezoning their
properties in the near future; unfortunately, they had not been provided with any helpful direction in that area.
Ms. Dixon stated that since the value of the project would only pay for a fraction of the needed funds to re -align
• Hopewell and Brucetown Roads, they decided to attempt to offer their fair share. She said they decided to
contribute a fixed dollar amount of $100 per daily trip that this property would generate; their payment would
increase as traffic counts increase; it would be paid at the site plan stage before construction could begin and it
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1935
Minutes of December 20, 2006
• would be tied to every site plan submitted that increases traffic in the future. Ms. Dixon said the other property
owners in the area have, unfortunately, decided not to join together to fix the intersection and they are now waiting
to see if this rezoning is denied. She said the adjoining property owners were also unhappy with the dollar
amount they had offered and are concerned about the precedent this application is setting. Ms. Dixon urged the
County to require every rezoning coming in after this one to match the same offer. In conclusion, Ms. Dixon
asked for the County's input on the square footage limitation placed in their proffers; she said the floor area limits
proffered at 75,000 square feet overall and 10,000 square feet for indoor recreation were initially done to reduce
the traffic counts. Ms. Dixon said they would appreciate a positive recommendation from the Commission to
remove these caps from their proffers; they preferred to maximize the use of the property, since the traffic impact
proffers were based on the traffic generated.
She next provided the Commission with a revised proffer statement which contained additional
uses they were interested in proffering out, which included: transportation by air, mobile home dealers, drive -in
motion picture theaters, railroad cars and truck stops; a list of restrictions to the floor area for several high - traffic
generating uses; an architectural proffer requiring all building exteriors facing Martinsburg Pike to be constructed
of masonry, stone, glass, stucco, and/or wood; additional landscaping; and a lump sum cash proffer of $27,000
which is the approximate cost of four inches of asphalt and eight inches of stone for their 600 -foot section of
Woodside Road.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Frederick A. Stronko, an adjoining property owner at 3656 Martinsburg Pike, was opposed
to the rezoning. Mr. Stronko said it sometimes takes him ten minutes just to get out of his driveway because of all
the traffic in this area. He was opposed to placing the burden of transportation improvements on the County and
• was concerned it may affect the public's taxes. He was also unhappy with all of the trash that ends up in his yard,
apparently generated from the commercial and industrial development in the area. Mr. Stronko believed the rural
residents were not being cared for and if the County allows these types of uses in rural areas, they need to consider
the residents who live there.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Members of the Commission pointed out that since revised proffers were submitted just this
evening, the Commission should table the proposal until the staff and the attorney can review the revised proffers.
Secondly, they believed the rezoning should be tabled until the Planning Staff has had an opportunity to evaluate
the proposal and establish a baseline for minimum contributions for small -area rezonings towards transportation
improvements.
In addition, Commissioner Morris asked for further examination of how this would be viewed in
light of proffering. He questioned if this could be viewed as imposing an impact fee or will it bean outpouring of
an impact model for proffering purposes.
Commissioner Mohn believed it would be beneficial for all parties involved to discuss a strategy
for this type of situation in order to guide the decision - makers. He said the County currently accepts per -unit
monetary proffers for transportation and the money is designated; he suggested that the funds contributed through
rezoning could be handled similarly for residential, commercial, or industrial projects. He also raised the issue of
how this all fits into the new process of including transportation improvements in the CIP.
E
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1936
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-7-
• Commissioner Kriz anticipated the County would be facing many more of these same situations
in the future and it was time to establish some appropriate ground rules. He thought the proposal by the applicant
was good. Commissioner Kriz commented that it may take more time than the applicant prefers to solve the
issues; however, he thought once it was established, the County would have a standard guideline to follow. Other
Commission members agreed.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning
Commission unanimously voted to table Rezoning #18 -06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by
GreyWolfe, Inc., for 90 days to allow time for review of revised proffers and for the staff to have the opportunity
to evaluate the applicant's proposal and to establish a baseline for minimum contributions towards transportation
improvements which could be used when evaluating small -area rezoning applications.
(Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning 920 -06 for the Civil War Preservation Trust, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 222.03
acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RA (Rural Areas) District for agricultural
preservation. The properties are located on Redbud Road (Route 661), 0.7 miles to the commercial
entrance of the Civil War Preservation Trust Park, next to Hackwood Farm. The properties are further
identified with P.I.N.s 54 -A -88 and 54 -A -90 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
• Commissioner Oates said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning,
due to a potential conflict of interest.
Planner Kevin T. Henry reported that the rezoning is a proposal to provide further preservation
of agricultural and battlefield property located on two parcels near Red Bud Road. Mr. Henry said the property
lies within the Third Battle of Winchester Core Battlefield Area and is currently maintained by the Association for
the Preservation of Civil War Sites. He said this site was also placed into a conservation easement in the Year
2000 and was also placed into the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District earlier this year, helping to prohibit
development of the 222 acres within this application. Mr. Henry also noted that the site is located outside of the
Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SW SA); he said that modifications to
the UDA and S W SA took place in the Year 2003 to further preserve the property. He stated that the site is within
the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, which shows the majority of the rezoning
within a Historic/ Developmentally - Sensitive Area (DSA).
Mr. Henry stated that the rezoning of this property will further ensure its protection as a
battlefield preservation site and is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Through on -going recreational
and trail system efforts, the property is seemingly more appropriate for rural land use. Mr. Henry said there were
no proffers associated with the rezoning, since no impacts were anticipated.
Ms. Trudy Dixon, on behalf of GreyWolfe, Inc., representing the property owner, Civil War
Preservation Trust, stated that GreyWolfe, Inc. has taken on this project because they believe it is a great direction
for the community in preserving the agricultural nature of the area.
• Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman
Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1937
Minutes of December 20, 2006
• Commissioners were pleased with the rezoning application. No issues or concerns were raised.
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 Rezoning 420 -06 for the Civil War Preservation Trust, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone
222.03 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RA (Rural Areas) District for agricultural
preservation.
(Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting. Commissioner Oates abstained from the
vote.)
Agricultural and Forestal District Update— Revisions to the South Frederick District, the Double Church
District, and the Red Bud District. The revisions to these districts will establish a total of 7,680.76 acres
within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing three -year period. Properties
incorporated into an agricultural and forestal district are guaranteed certain protections as specified in
Section 15.2 -4300 of the Code of Virginia
Action — Recommended Approval of All Three Districts
Planner Bernard Suchicital reported that during the 2005 Agricultural and Forestal District
• renewal process, some property owners hesitated to renew their applications due to concerns raised by the RA
Study; however, since then, the staff has received applications to enroll 21 new parcels and to remove four parcels
from the County's three Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Mr. Suchicital proceeded to review each of the
districts with the Planning Commission, as follows:
South Frederick Agricultural & Forestal District
The proposal will remove four parcels that were mistakenly left in during the 2005 renewal
process, totaling 450.33 acres, and will add three parcels, totaling 123.05 acres, which will bring the total acreage
within this agricultural district to 5,878.64 acres, lying within the Back Creek Magisterial District. The
predominantly agricultural operations within the proposed additions are livestock, and hay and crop harvesting;
the parcels are rural in nature. The proposed additions lay outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and
the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the parcels have no land use designation, which indicates the area
should remain rural. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee considered this proposal at their meeting of
November 30, 2006 and voted unanimously for the recommendation of the additions and deletions of parcels to
the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District,
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
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 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, with the changes proposed, for a total of
5,878.64 acres.
• (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1938
Minutes of December 20, 2006
• Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District
This proposal will add nine parcels, totaling 274.16 acres, which will bring the total acreage
within this agricultural district to 1,034.32 acres, lying within the Opequon Magisterial District. The additions
are agriculturally significant; however, two of the parcels lie within the proposed path of Warrior Drive's
extension from Fairfax Pike to Double Church Road, and towards the relocated Exit 307. The agricultural
operations within the proposed additions are livestock and hay cultivation. The proposed additions are outside
the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (S WSA); the parcels have no land
use designation, which indicates the area should remain Waal. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee
considered this proposal at their meeting of November 30, 2006 and voted unanimously for the recommendation
of the additions of these parcels to the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, citing the importance of
preserving Warrior Drive's extension from future development.
Commission members did not know of any plans for development activity in this area and
believed that the Warrior Drive extension would more than likely not occur within the next five years; therefore,
they did not foresee an issue with including those two parcels within the district for a three -year period.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak:
Ms. Linda Borror, a resident of the Opequon District, came forward to speak about the two
parcels on Double Church Road that will be within the future path of Warrior Drive extension. Ms. Borror said
these tracts of land have been used for many years for the purpose of agriculture production, such as pasturing
and raising livestock and growing crops. She said the two tracts have been in her family for several years and the
• sole purpose of including the tracts within the district is to preserve the land for farming and to continue the
family tradition of the original owners, her father and brother. Ms. Borror said she was not interested in selling to
a developer or to disrupt the agricultural production. She said her son and family have their home on the 20 acres;
the property is well - maintained, and is used for farming; they wished to preserve this land for fanning and pass it
down to their grandchildren. She said the parcels are in compliance with the conditions of the district and meet
the requirements of the Agricultural and Forestal District Act.
Mr. Kenneth E. Waymer said he has been in this agricultural district since it was established.
Regarding an earlier question raised about the eligibility of small- acreage parcels, he said in 1983 he purchased a
house with ten acres; he said three acres contain the house with a seven -acre hayfield alongside. Mr. Waymer said
from the day he moved in, he has been producing hay on the remaining seven acres. He said a few years later he
purchased another property, which he is also farming. Mr. Waymer commented that Mr. Shiley's property
adjoins his and they both produce hay and help each other with feeding livestock and baling hay. Mr. Waymer
said that Warrior Drive comes directly through his field; he said he has no intentions of selling the property to a
developer.
Mr. Herbert Painter, owner of six acres across from Mr. Shiley's property on the other side of
Route 641, said he placed his property within the agricultural district when it was first established. Mr. Painter
said he continues to produce hay on this property. He was in favor of adding the additional parcels to the
agricultural district.
Mr. Robert L. Shiley, the owner of one of the properties to be added to the district, said he
inherited this property from his grandfather and uncle. Mr. Shiley said he has continued to farm the property and
assists the surrounding farmers with their farm operations. Mr. Shiley said he would like to preserve the farmland
• and pass it on to his children; he was not interested in developing the property.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1939
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-10-
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
• BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, with the inclusion of all nine parcels requested
to be added to the district, for a total of 1,034.32 acres.
(Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District
This proposal will add nine parcels, totaling 68.59 acres, which will bring the total acreage
within this agricultural district to 903.57 acres, lying within the Stonewall Magisterial District. Two of the
parcels meet the qualifications to be enrolled in the district; however, the remaining seven along Valley Mill Road
lie within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and are identified by the County's long -range land use
plan for higher density residential. Therefore, the addition of the seven parcels will not conform to the County's
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The predominantly agricultural operations within the proposed additions are
livestock and hay cultivation. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee considered this proposal at their
meeting of November 30, 2006 and voted unanimously for the recommendation of the addition of these parcels to
the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District, including the seven parcels within the UDA, citing the need to
maintain open space within residentially- designated areas.
Commission members asked the staff what the disadvantages were to having the seven parcels
within the agricultural district, other than being in the UDA. Staff replied that the Comprehensive Policy Plan
calls for this area to be residentially -zoned in the future and having an agricultural district within the UDA
conflicts with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commission members did not foresee this setting a precedent and
• believed it was advantageous to the County by staving off development for several years.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Ed Lambert said he owned 20 wooded acres in the Red Bud District. He inquired if his land
was eligible to be placed in an agricultural district and if there was an advantage to being placed within the
district. Mr. Lambert said for the past 16 years he could not place a building on some parts of his property
because of the County's intentions of constructing Route 37 through his property. He wanted to know if Route
37 could be constructed through his property, if it was within an agricultural district.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
meeting.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District, with the inclusion of all nine parcels requested to be
added to the district, for a total of 903.57 acres.
(Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1940
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-11—
PUBLIC MEETING
• Rezoning #11 -06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for 13 single - family homes on small
lots. The property fronts on the north side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657), adjacent to the Parkwood Manor
Subdivision. The property is further identified with P.I.N.s 65 -A -27A and 65 -A -28A in the Red Bud
Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffer Revisions
Planner Candice E. Perkins stated that the public hearing for the Abrams Chase rezoning
application was held at the Planning Commission's September 20, 2006 meeting. She said the application was
postponed for 90 days to allow the applicant to address specific issues discussed at the Commission's meeting.
Ms. Perkins said the revised application is intended to accommodate a 13 -unit, single - family, small -lot
development with a density of four units per acre. Ms. Perkins said the previous application contained 14 units.
She said the previous application also contained a new access road, which would cul -de -sac on the property; this
road has been revised to continue to the western property line for connectivity into the adjacent properties, should
they develop in the future. Ms. Perkins said the applicant's proffer statement also includes a commitment for
making the required frontage improvements to Senseny Road, including the necessary right -of -way dedication to
provide for 45 feet from the existing centerline of Senseny Road, as well as lane widening, to achieve the full
section across the frontage of the property, and the ten foot asphalt bicycle/ pedestrian trail. Other revisions
included access to the adjacent parcel on Senseny Road and a public connection into the new public road in
Abram's Chase. Ms. Perkins said that in addition to the inter - parcel connection and transportation proffers, a
monetary contribution has been proffered in the amount of $23,290 per lot.
is Ms. Perkins concluded by stating that the applicant has addressed the issues that were discussed
at the September 20, 2006 meeting. She said consideration should be made for the location of the revised road
shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP), as this rezoning will establish the location of the road for
future developments. She said the revised GPD also needs to provide a location for the required recreational
facility.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was representing Harvest Communities, Inc. in
this rezoning application. Mr. Wyatt explained to the Commission why he set the alignment to the adjoining
properties in the design shown. He also briefly described the revisions from the previous plan, including the 24
feet of additional pavement, the ten -foot asphalt bicycle facility, and a curb cut and access easement for the
adjacent small parcel to have access to the internal public streets in their project. In addition, Mr. Wyatt said they
would be willing to allow a utility easement for this adjoining property to connect to water and sewer.
Commissioner Unger inquired if the inter- parcel connector would be structurally able to
accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Wyatt replied yes; he said the road system design will be constructed to
the standard of a 400 to 2,000 vehicle trips street. He said this road will not have more than 2,000 vehicle trips.
Commissioner Ours asked the applicant why they had removed the original offer of $1,000 per
unit for transportation impacts in the revised proffers. Mr. Wyatt said that a VDOT- produced modeling table
showed that full frontage improvements were not required for this project, based on the impacts generated.
Therefore, they had offered $1,000 per unit and V DOT's comment was positive at the Commission's September
meeting. However, the Commission and Staff had requested full frontage improvements. Mr. Wyatt said that
since there is a much more significant cost involved, they offered to do the frontage improvements in lieu of the
• cash contribution.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1941
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-12-
• Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Edward Lambert, Red Bud District, an adjoining property owner, had concerns that the
construction for the access turn might damage a sewer line for the existing mobile home.
In response to Mr. Lambert's concern, Mr. Wyatt stated that the access turn on Senseny Road
will be completely within the existing right -of -way, plus there is additional right -of -way dedication on the
applicant's property.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Commissioner Mohn,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning # 11 -06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District for 13 single- family homes, with the revised proffers to include a
utility easement for the adjoining property owner to the west.
YES (to approve) Unger, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot
NO: Light
(Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.)
• Rezoning #14 -06 of Glaize Property, submitted by Painter- Lewis, PLC, to rezone 1.38 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property
is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50)/ Round Hill
Road (Route 803)/ Retail Boulevard. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 52 -A -252 in the
Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Denial
Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that the public hearing for this application was held by
the Planning Commission on November 1, 2006. Ms. Eddy said the Planning Commission raised a number of
issues and postponed a decision on the application. She said that since that time, the staff has met with the
applicant's representative, Mr. John Lewis of Painter - Lewis, PLC, to review the Commission's concerns and to
review the contents of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. Ms. Eddy said the applicant has made a
number of changes since the public hearing took place; she proceeded to review the revisions of the plan with the
Commission.
Ms. Eddy stated that the right -in entrance on Route 50 was moved further west and meets all the
spacing criteria; the proffers state there will be a right -in only entrance designed at the site plan stage; the
applicant is providing a 20 -foot landscaped strip containing street trees, plantings, and a sidewalk; the applicant
is limiting the free - standing signage to one monument sign with a maximum area of 50 square feet and a
maximum height of 12 feet; a sidewalk is included on Round Hill Road; and $10,000 has been proffered for
future road improvements in the Route 50 corridor. Ms. Eddy said the only unresolved issue is the location of the
• building site. She explained that the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan has a number of standards in place to
deter Route 50 West from becoming a typical commercial -strip development and one of the requirements is for
buildings to be placed close to the front of the site along Route 50 with parking behind the buildings. She said the
Frederick Count Planning Commission Page 1942
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-13-
applicant has proffered there would be two rows of parking in front of the building and an access isle. Ms. Eddy
• said that given the configuration of the lot and the entrances, the staff believes it is quite conceivable to place the
building up at the front of the property. She said the staff was not seeking in any way to prohibit a drive -thru lane
in front of the building; it is solely the prohibiting of actual parking spaces, in order to comply with the Round
Hill Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Kriz asked Ms. Eddy to describe what is required on the south side of Route 50 as
compared to north side of Route 50 regarding the Round Hill Plan and the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In
addition, he said the plan calls for monument -style signs and questions have been raised about the free- standing
sign belonging to Applebees restaurant. Ms. Eddy replied that for the north side of Route 50, a 50 -foot
landscaped strip with a ten -foot asphalt bicycle trail, ornamental shrubs, and street trees are required; the south
side of Route 50 requires a 50 -foot landscaped strip, 20 feet for smaller tracts, which she considered this
application to be a small tract, with a landscaped strip and a five -foot concrete sidewalk, ornamental shrubs, and
street trees. She said the south side actually has less of a requirement than the north side. Ms. Eddy said the
Applebees site was covered by a rezoning approved in 2003 for the W W W property, she said the sign restrictions
only prohibited the placement of signs in the 50 -foot landscaped strip. She said the property owners' design
review board approved the sign.
Mr. John Lewis, of Painter - Lewis, PLC, was representing the owner, Glaize Real Estate. Mr.
Lewis stated that all of the concerns of the Commission had been addressed except one, which is the placement of
parking at the rear of the building. He said that due to design issues, it was a difficult task to develop a 1.38 -acre
site without any parking in the front. Mr. Lewis stated this property has 241 feet of frontage. He said if they can
not use the 50 feet in front, required for the building setback, it will result in about 18% of the property being
unavailable for development. Mr. Lewis pointed out that the building square footage decreases proportionally.
• He commented that if the building restriction line was reduced to 15 or 20 feet, it could result in a workable
situation. He said the property owner is not willing to proffer the parking in the rear without some relief from the
building restriction line.
Mr. Lewis further added that if all of the parking is placed at the rear of this parcel, he believed
conflicts were inevitable with combining employee and client parking, along with services, trash pick -up, and
deliveries. He said it would result in even more area used up to assure there would not be conflicts. Mr. Lewis
said that Applebees across the street has parking in the front and that is how they see this particular site
developed. Mr. Lewis asked for a favorable recommendation to the Board, but they were not willing to succumb
on the parking restriction.
Commissioner Oates expressed to the applicant that the Commission is trying to improve on the
appearance of the Route 50 corridor and does not want to see a continuation of the situation at Applebces. He
said that although the ordinance requires green space in the B2 Districts, the area still can be used for storm water
management or utility placement. He said that nothing precludes a drive lane from coming across in front of the
building, only the actual standing parking spaces. Commissioner Oates said he did not see the problem with
removing the parking between the building and the road and he believed the applicant still had a useable site.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman
Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Lewis returned to the podium and stated that the storm water on this site naturally drains
from Route 50 towards the back of the property; therefore, the storm water management will be at the rear of the
property. He commented that typically, the rule of thumb is 25% floor area for a commercial site similar to this
• one, allowing a 15,000 square -foot building; he said if they were restricted by a 50 -foot setback, he estimated the
building will end up being about 12,000 square feet. He said he did not have a problem placing the building up
close to Route 50, if the building restriction line was reduced to 20 feet. Mr. Lewis believed this restriction was a
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1943
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-14-
burden on this site and would not work for this site.
• Commissioner Morris believed the ordinance requirements could certainly work for a parcel of
this size. He referred to the McDonald's site just right up the road on Amherst Street; he said the McDonald's
has side and rear parking, a drive- through, and an aesthetically- pleasing front.
Members of the Commission recognized that although the rezoning application was generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan in terns of its use, the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan,
which was adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan in 2006, specifically calls for commercial
buildings to be sited close to Route 50 with parking behind the building. Commissioners noted that this was the
first application to come forward since the adoption of that plan and they were clear that they wanted the design
standards within the plan followed.
Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
denial of Rezoning 414 -06 of Glaize Property, submitted by Painter - Lewis, PLC, to rezone 1.38 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use.
OTHER
• UPDATE ON THE RURAL AREAS STUDY
Commissioner Light commented that recent newspaper articles indicated the Board of
Supervisors had made a decision about how they would proceed with the Rural Areas Study. Commissioner Light
asked if the staff could provide additional input on what is being done. Ms. Eddy stated that the Board of
Supervisors recently held a work session to talk about the Rural Areas Studies and they had asked staff to prepare
a short presentation on the transfer of development rights (TDR), which are now allowed in the State of Virginia.
She said that Mr. Bishop also gave a short presentation on transportation impact fees. She said she was asked to
investigate TDRs further for information. She said there was a general discussion of the Rural Areas Study; most
people were aware that the development table Chairman Schickle had presented was tabled. She said there was a
draft plan that went along with the development table. Ms. Eddy said that one feature of the plan, included in the
third column of the table, allowed a rezoning option whereby rural land owners could possibly get a density bonus
if they chose to rezone their property and go through a rezoning process. She said this feature didn't seem to be
supported at this work session. She said the Staff was directed to study the table again and to remove the
rezoning option in the table and associated text. She said the staff was instructed to get back to the Board within
a two -month time frame and they would review it again.
Commissioner Light expressed his desire for the information to be presented to the citizens for
their understanding and input. He suggested at least one public informational forum be held to explain the Board
of Supervisors' recommendation. Commissioner Light wanted to extend to the Board his concern that the public
be allowed to be educated before any public hearing is held.
u
Frederick County Planning Commission Page I
Minutes of December 20, 2006
-15-
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Wilmot, Chairman
I
Secretary
•
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1945
Minutes of December 20, 2006