Loading...
PC_01-02-08_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 January 2, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chainnan/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District, Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District, George J. Kriz, 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; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Robert Mitchell, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director, Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; 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 Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the January 2, 2008 meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS FOR 2008 The Secretary to the Planning Commission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, presided over the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2008. Election of June S. Wilmot, Chairman for 2008 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2008 calendar year. The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2173 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -z- • BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chainnan of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2008. Election of Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2008 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chairman for the 2008 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Conunissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Cotmmissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2008. Election of Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary for 2008 • Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission. The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours. Motion was made by Conunissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Eric R. LaPTence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2008. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2008 Planning Commission Upon motion made by Conunissioner Oates and seconded by Conunissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building, 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2174 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -3- 0 Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick Comity Planning Conunission voted unanimously to have regularly scheduled meetings of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) on the second Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building. Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Unger, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have the regularly scheduled meetings of the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the Frederick Comity Administration Building. Committee Assignments for 2008 • Chairman Wilmot stated that all commissioners who are currently members of either the CPPS or the DRRS will remain in their respective roles. Chairman Wilmot renewed liaison appointments to the following committees: Conunissioner Kriz to the Transportation Committee, with Commissioner Oates as the alternate; Commissioner Kerr to the Economic Development Commission; Commissioner Unger to dhe Salutation Authority; Conunissioner Oates to the Historic Resources Advisory Board, with Commissioner Kriz as the alternate; Commissioner Light to the Conservation Easement Authority, Commissioner Manuel and Commissioner Thomas to the Development Impact Model Oversight Conunittee. Plarmine Commission Bylaws for 2008 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission unanhnously voted in favorof the adoption of the Bylaws for the Planning Commission for the year of 2008, as presented. 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. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2175 Minutes of January 2, 2008 7� i PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning 909 -07 of Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business), with proffers, for commercial uses. The property is located on the west side of Route 11, approximately 2,200 feet north of Hopewell Road (Interstate Exit 321) and south of Cedar Hill Road (Route 671). The property is further identified by P.I.N. 33 -A -125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 90 Days Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this application is a request to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), with proffers. Mr. Ruddy said the property is within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the linuts of the Northeast Land Use Plan ( NELUP), which designates this site for business uses. He noted that the NELUP calls for Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) to be improved to a four -lane divided facility and states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. He said this application does not provide for that LOS. Mr. Ruddy said the proffer statement submitted with this application provides for one point of • ingress/ egress to this site, a new entrance directly on Route 11. He said the applicant has proffered the maximum amount of commercial development of 190,000 square feet, which provides an understanding of the associated transportation impacts and is consistent with what has been modeled in the applicant's Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA indicates that a LOS C condition will be maintained at the impacted intersections, Hopewell Road, Brucetown Road, Route 11 and the intersection of Rest Church Road, Route 11, with a variety of different improvements at these intersections, including additional turn lanes, re alignment of roads, and additional signalizations. However, none of the improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application or provided for in the proffer statement. Mr. Ruddy stated the applicant has taken a slightly different approach and rather than specifying particular improvements, has pointed out a couple approaches on how they will address the impacts. He said the applicant's program provides for a variety of things on -site and, dealing with transportation, the applicant has proffered an additional lane across the frontage of their property on Route 11, additional turn lanes into the site, and right -of -way dedication across the frontage of their site. In addition, he said the applicant has gone beyond their site to provide a monetary contribution for signalization at the Hopewell /Brucetown Road intersection and a left -turn lane on Route I 1 North, turning left onto Rest Church Road. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that while many of the site design elements have been provided for, the transportation impacts associated with this request have not been fully mitigated in the applicant's transportation package. There next ensued some discussion between the commissioners and the staff concerning the combination of proffers offered by various previous applicants in this particular area involving funding and services. Commissioners asked if there was sufficient right -of -way to install a signal. The staff replied that a • review of all of the TIAs performed for this area indicates that much more than a signal is needed. Staff noted that additional lane configurations are needed; however, there is a limited ability to make the improvements because of insufficient right -of -way. Commission members asked if enough money had been proffered to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2176 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -5- purchase the right -of -ways and the signalization, and turn lanes, etc. to maintain a LOS C and the staff replied no. Deputy Director - Transportation, Mr. John Bishop, was available to answer questions involving the transportation network. A commissioner commented about adjoining parcels coming in for rezoning and the possibility of inter - parcel connectivity, similar to the layout on Route 7 at I -81, and what type of transportation network would be required. Mr. Bishop stated that if all of the parcels were to come in together, with possibly a reverse frontage situation and one primary signalized entrance, it would probably work well. It was noted that a signalized entrance midway between Bruceto\v i and Woodside would be preferable over each parcel having its own entrance. Mr. Bishop explained the full planned remedy includes re- alignment of Brucetown with Hopewell, intersection improvements, and signalization. Commission members commented about the advantage of knowing the value for these improvements in order to be able to assign improvement costs to each development based on their traffic generated. Mr. Benjamin Butler, the attorney representing the applicant, said the applicant recognizes the transportation problems in this area of the County; however, no one property owner could solve the entire problem and the situation would have to be improved in pieces. Mr. Butler said their hope was that the Commission will recognize the applicant is offering his fair share of improvements. Mr. Claus Bader, with German Engineering, the design and engineering firm for the project, said that since a user for the site has not yet been determined, they used worst -case scenario numbers for various users in their TIA. He said that in order to mitigate impacts of this site, VDOT requested an additional left -turn lane at Rest Church Road, which the applicant has agreed to install. He commented that installation of this lane will require the removal of existing curb and gutter, storm sewer, and the lowering of a water line installed with the Sernpeles property, and they are estimating about $200,000 to make this improvement. In addition, they are • proffering a monetary contribution for the Brueetown/ Hopewell Road intersection in the amount of $100,000. He talked about the various transportation proffers made by other projects in this vicinity and commented that the pieces are coming together for this intersection. Commission members spoke with the applicant about the possibility of limiting the square footage or maximizing the trips per day. A suggestion was made for thresholds to be used if trips per day are exceeded and increasing portions of monetary proffers offered with more robust development. Chaitnnan Wilmot called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Debi Swimley- Martin, an adjoining property owner, said she was not opposed to the rezoning of the area, but she would have preferred for all the property owners to work together to rezone the entire neighborhood, instead of doing a patchwork rezoning. Ms. Swimley -Martin said a few of the neighbors met with the owner and his engineer and were told it was too late to work together, but maybe after the rezoning was approved. She said her concern is that since he is not a county resident, he may view this differently than the local residents. Ms. Swimley- Martin said she was concerned about what would be directly behind her property; she said the application is vague and so many land uses are allowed under the B2 Zoning, and she would like to see more details with the location of the planned buildings, roadways, and buffers, so she will know how to proceed with her property. Ms. Swimley -Martin reconmhended denial of this application in its present format. Mr. Mark Regan, an adjoining property owner, said the application seemed to be vague and incomplete because it did not identify the businesses, their location, nor does it illustrate the location of roads, parking lots, or landscaping. He said there were no building or lighting specifications and no development map with a layout and design. Mr. Regan stated that no specific location has been mentioned for the northern inter- parcel connection, which was important to him because his property was on the north side of this site. In addition, he said his well is located 25 feet from the applicant's property. He was concerned about what was going to take place behind his property. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2177 Minutes of January 2, 2008 ® Mr. Robert Widdows, property owner at 2042 Cedar Hill, at the comer of I -81 and Cedar Hill Road, said his primary concern is the safety of his child and other neighborhood children. Mr. Widdows raised similar issues as the previous speakers, particularly that the application was vague and incomplete. He was concerned the application provided no specifics on timing or phasing and there was no commitment to design, materials, or grade of construction. Mr. Widdows said the applicant did not initiate any communications with the neighborhood residents and there was unwillingness by the applicant to provide specifics. He commented that many off -site improvements will be needed. He did not believe the applicant's monetary transportation proffer of $100,000 was a fair one and it did not help to advance the NELUP. Mr. Widdows said there were 400 or more allowed B2 uses and the applicant eliminated only two, a truck stop and a mobile home dealer. He expressed concern because the application left him vulnerable to 398 uses, including a fire department. Mr. Widdows said water and sewer are not mentioned, even though the neighbors' drain fields are on the applicant's property. He said there were too many variables and assumptions and the application should be denied. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Butler returned to the podumi to address the remarks by the citizens. Mr. Butler said that everyone understands this area is slated for commercial development. Mr. Butler raised the question of whether all projects should be turned down until there is a transportation fix, or if the development should take place in such a way that each applicant that comes along will bear his fair share of what is needed. Mr. Butler staled that the transportation problems will have to be approached in pieces because no one developer could afford to finance the entire project. Mr. Ruddy stated that on many recent occasions, applicants' TIAs have shown what the ultimate solution could be to accommodate their projects. He said many details, including right -of -way, need to be worked out to provide the blueprint on how development can occur. He noted that as more and more of these proposals come in, it becomes evident that this is how to achieve the blueprint. Mr. Ruddy advised that care should be taken about adding additional impacts within an already stressed corridor in lieu of having the blueprint in place. He said this application, therefore, is somewhat consistent to those of Arogas and BPG, where needed improvements have been identified, but there is no inunediate way of actually implementing them. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Ruddy what specific items were missing with regards to transportation. Mr. Ruddy stated that the TIA, Page 12, shows the build -out with the LOS and lane geometry needed to accommodate this use and the background traffic. He said the TIA describes a variety of improvements at the intersections of Hopewell Road and Rest Church Road (Rt. 11); it describes left -turn lanes, additional through lanes, re- aligmnent, and signalization. Mr. Ruddy said those are fundamentally the impacts that have been identified in the TIA and are not fully addressed in the application. Mr. Ruddy recognized that for the applicant alone, it may not be appropriate for them to provide for the ultimate build out of both of those particular interchanges, however, to move forward with this application at this time, would cause greater impacts in those particular locations. Mr. Ruddy said the staff believes, therefore, that this application in conjunction with others, should provide for those improvements. A Commissioner commented that the ultimate build -out of traffic would probablybe realized in 2012 -2014. He asked if there may be an opportunity to get something in the Six -Year Road Improvement Program to work on those intersections. Mr. Bishop said that VDOT has been accorrmnodating to at least provide a line item with a token amount of dollars to enable the county to try and move things forward. Mr. Bishop said the $100,000 being proffered for the Hopewell intersection could be used as part of that seed money. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2178 Minutes of January 2, 2008 • VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, said there could still be degraded service even with the traffic signal because much of the traffic coming out of Brucetowm is laden trucks. He said the re- alignment of the two roads will be critical. Mr. Ingram said the applicants offered to construct the left -turn lane at Rest Church and the positive thing about that is with costs going up, we have something of value. He said a cash proffer is good, but if it can't be utilized in the near future, the value dissipates. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Ingram what was the most critical physical item needed at the Hopewell Road interchange to begin the process. Mr. Ingram believed the first thing needed is a full design and set of plans for the alignment. He said from that point, it can be determined what sections need to be completed. He said at present, VDOT is working from sketches and ideas. Commissioner Light advised all developers involved in rezoning applications to make a commitment to work with the neighbors, especially when septic fields and sewer capacity is involved. In addition, he said the staff report clearly states the impacts associated with this request have not been mitigated by the applicant. In particular, transportation improvements have not been provided that would achieve an acceptable LOS Category C, specifically at the two major intersections identified in the applicant's TIA. Comnissioner Light then made a motion to deny the rezoning request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. Other Commissioners commented they believed the application was a good package with the negative aspect being transportation. Conmussion members commented that the County was going to be finding themselves in this situation more frequently because of the absence of sufficient transportation infrastructure in areas of the County. Members commented on the need to find some fair, reasonable, and proportionate method to make the process fair to the developers. It was pointed out that this property was in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SW SA) and was designated for business use in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. They questioned . one individual applicant's responsibility for the transportation infrastructure and if something could be worked out to allow this project to take place. Commissioner Mohn said lie preferred to see more effort from the applicant with VDOT and the staff to see if some level of agreement can be reached to make sure this application is providing the best approach, given the scale of the project and how it fits within the total development area. Commissioner Light stated that corridors included within the Capital Improvements Plan should have a regionalized transportation plan; subsequently, when a rezoning is pursued, the applicant knows exactly what is needed or expected. He said having a property in the Comprehensive Policy Plan is just one level. He said the Commission should tell the applicant when the infrastructure is not ready. Commissioner Light said a plan needs to be formulated, it needs to be implemented, and everyone should be asked for their level of participation. Commissioner Light's motion for denial was defeated by the following vote: YES (TO DENY) Unger, Watt, Light, Ours, Mohn NO: Manuel, Thomas, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Wilmot ABSTAIN Oates A new motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to table the rezoning application for 90 days to allow the developer to meet with local residents and to re- evaluate his transportation plan and proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a majority vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2179 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -8- BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning 409 -07 of Clearbrook Property, submitted by German Engineering, to rezone 14.53 acres from RA ID (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business), with proffers, for conmiercial uses, for 90 days to allow the developer to meet with local residents and to reevaluate his transportation plan and proffers. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO TABLE) Molm, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Manuel, Watt, Unger, Wilmot NO: Light ABSTAIN Oates Rezoning 911 -07 of 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy, submitted by Painter- Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a pharmacy. The properties are located at 1932 Senseny Road (Route 657) at the intersection with Greenwood Road (Route 656). The property is further identified by P.I.N.s 55 -A -196 and 65A -2 -1 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Commissioner Molm stated that he would be abstaining from all discussion and voting on this rezoning, due to a potential conflict of interest. • Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, said this rezoning application was tabled from the Planning Commission's November 7, 2007 meeting. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to highlight some of the issues identified at the Commission's November 7 public hearing, which included concerns about pedestrian access, buffering and screening of adjacent properties, and transportation impacts, particularly ingress and egress. Mr. Ruddy said Proffer 412 has been added, which attempts to provide a long -term solution to address the concerns over access to and from the site. He. said the ability has been provided through this proffer to close the proposed entrances in favor of improved access and circulation south of the entrance on Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) and in a location directly across from the signalized entrance to the Orrick Coimnons project. Both scenarios could only occur with the development of adjacent properties and the provision of inter - parcel connectivity. He said Proffer #13 has been added which commits the applicant to providing pedestrian signalization with the crossing of Senseny Road, contingent on VDOT's approval. Mr. Ruddy noted that the applicant has also provided a series of renderings of the building elevations to represent a prototype the applicant believes will be constructed on the property, however, the renderings have not been proffered. In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that while the applicant has attempted to mitigate the traffic impacts, the possibility of insufficient left -turn stacking room remains on north -bound Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) at the intersection of Senseny Road (Rt. 657). He said the applicant's parcel lacks sufficient depth to allow for adequate right -of -way dedication to alleviate the stacking situation. He added that the provision of Proffer 412 provides a long -term solution, but is incumbent on the development of adjacent properties. Chainnan Wilmot next called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak. 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2180 Minutes of January 2, 2008 m • Ms. Kathy Kerns, the owner of the house directly across from the proposed pharmacy entrance on Greenwood Road, expressed her concern about the existing traffic congestion and the difficulty exiting her driveway on Greenwood Road. Ms. Kerns had concerns about the placement of proposed landscaping to screen her property. She wanted to make sure the height of the proposed landscaping would be sufficient to shield her home from headlights and parking lot lighting. In addition, Ms. Kerns did not think the appearance of a two -story pharmacy would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, which consisted of single - family, one -story residences. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Conunission members inquired of the applicant whether he would be able to address the homeowners concerns. They questioned the applicant about why the renderings and site layout had not been submitted as proffers. Commission members also pointed out a pending revision to the County's sign ordinance which will restrict sign heights along collector roads to 15 feet, they asked the applicant about reducing the monument sign height from 20 to 15 feet. Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. with Painter- Lewis, P.L.C., consulting engineers for the project, stated that while the rendering of the building and site layout had not been proffered, he was confident this was how the site and structure would look upon construction, based on the monetary investment in the project. Mr. Lewis commented on the submittal of a pedestrian crossing plan for Senseny Road, noting their proffer for its implementation. He also spoke about the proffered resolution recognizing that entrances may be too close to the intersections and noting their long -term plan for improved access with inter - parcel connections, once commercial development occurs along the Greenwood and Senseny Road corridors. Mr. Lewis spoke of their intent to dedicate right -of -way, to construct turn lanes, and to provide transportation funds. In addition, he commented on the productive dialogue with the property owner on Greenwood Road; the applicant agreed to plant whatever the homeowner desired in that area, within reason. He noted that the homeowner had suggested the possibility of a one -year window after the pharmacy is in operation to see what the impacts will actually be. Mr. Lewis agreed to meet with his client to consider reducing the sign height to 15 feet. Commission members recognized the transportation issues in this area, but were satisfied with the applicant's willingness to close the existing entrances, if and when the surrounding properties develop commercially, in favor of improved access and circulation south of the entrance on Greenwood Road. Commission members also recognized efforts by the applicant to work with the adjoining homeowners, particularly with landscaping, and the pedestrian crossing. A member of the Commission recommended the applicant consider stronger language concerning design standards. Conunissioner Kerr made a motion to approve the rezoning with proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Conunission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning # 11 -07 of 1932 Senseny Road Pharmacy, submitted by Painter- Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.2 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for a pharmacy at 1932 Senseny Road (Route 657). (Note: Conunissioner Mole abstained from voting.) • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2181 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -10- Conditional Use Permit 408 -07 for Wayne and Mellisa Fauver for a public garage with body repair at 441 Marple Road (Route 654). The property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District and is identified with P.I.N. 42- A -54 -D in the Gainesboro District. Action — Recommended Approval With Conditions Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported thatpublic garages with body repair are permitted in the RA Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit (CUP), provided all the repair work takes place within an enclosed structure. Mr. Cheran said the proposed use will be conducted in an existing garage approximately 3,500 square feet in size. He said the property and adjoining properties are heavily wooded for natural screening. Mr. Cheran noted that the closest dwelling is more than 100 feet from the garage. He stated that no more than five vehicles waiting for repair will be allowed on the property at any one time and no more than two employees will be allowed with the proposed use. He pointed out that no vehicle sales or unrelated repair sales will be permitted. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. Mr. Cheran explained that reconunended Condition 43, "The applicant will be limited to repairing only five vehicles at a time," refers to operable vehicles awaiting restoration repair; while Condition 44, "No more than five inoperable vehicles on the property at any give time," refers to inoperable vehicles awaiting repair by the applicant. Commissioner Kriz suggested that natural woodland screening should be considered more thoroughly. He said that mature trees may not provide adequate screening, if there are no inter - planted shrubs or is evergreens, particularly through the winter and spring. Chairman Wilmot called for public conuuents and the following person came forward to speak. Mr. Ronald T. Smith, an adjoining property owner, agreed with the point made about inadequate screening with widely- spaced deciduous trees during the winter and spring. Mr. Smith suggested the addition of shrubs and evergreens to supplement the screening. He also raised a concern about the type and amount of traffic that would be generated on Marple Road. He said that his driveway onto Marple Road did not provide good sight distance for pulling out and he had safety concerns. In addition, Mr. Smith was concerned about size and type of vehicles being repaired on the property because of the possible affect on his property value. Mr. Wayne Fauver, the applicant, stated he would only be working on pick -up trucks and vehicles; he said the road traffic will probably only be three to four vehicles per week. Mr. Fauver said he would agree to additional screening, either with board -on -board fence or additional landscaping. Members of the Conuvission questioned VDOT's comments regarding site distance and a commercial entrance. Staff commented that the applicant would have the opportunity to meet with VDOT on the site to discuss requirements. Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Triplet, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 908 -07 for Wayne and Mellisa Fauver for a public garage with body repair at 441 Marple Road (Route 654) with the understanding that concerns raised by the adjoining property owner are • addressed and with the following conditions: Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2182 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -11- • 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than two employees allowed with this conditional use permit. 3. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five vehicles at a time. 4. No more than five inoperable vehicles on the property at any given time. 5. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the 3,500 square -foot enclosed structure. 6. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7. Any business use outside the repair realm of the conditional use permit is not permitted. 8. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed four square -feet in size. 9. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. • OTHER Discussion on Reeionalized Transportation Plans Chairman Wilmot raised the issue of regionalized transportation plans and possible ways the transportation infrastructure could be accomplished within a targeted area as individual project applications come through for consideration. She stated that the Transportation Committee and others are studying transportation impact fees, but it will be some time before those will be implemented. Chairman Wilmot suggested the Commission approach the problem by using Route I 1 as an example study area and examine the common areas, turn lanes, and intersections and decide which improvements would make this road work with an estimate on how much it will cost. She said the priorities would also need to be determined. Commissioner Thomas suggested the possibility of having a summary for each intersection listing what has been previously proffered and a time frame of when that improvement may occur. He thought this would be helpful to the Commission when considering applications. Mr. Lawrence, Planning Director, stated that staff has initiated the tracking of this information through GIS and as future applications are considered, those improvements proffered in the vicinity of the TIA area will be included in the staff report. Commission members commented that many applicants don't know what is expected of them for transportation improvements, instead of letting the applicant know specific improvements, they are just are asked to try again. It was suggested that the work begin with staff, rather than at a committee level, possibly discussing particulars at the upcoming retreat. Mr. Lawrence said staff could have preliminary proffer improvements laid out, so everyone can visualize the future improvements within the UDA and S WSA, and then can build from there. Conunissioners believed this would assist in getting the improvements in the CIP and the • Six -Year Road Improvement Plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2183 Minutes of January 2, 2008 -12- is ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted. Wilmot, Chairman Erick,aii7cncc, Secretary • 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 2, 2008 Page 2184