Loading...
PC_01-16-08_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 16, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Sha«mee District, Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District, George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, 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; Gary A. Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. WELCOME TO NEWLY- APPOINTED BACK CREEK REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, GARY A. LOFTON Chairman Wilmot welcomed the newly- appointed Back Creek District Representative on the Board of Supervisors, Gary A. Lofton. Chairman Wilmot stated that Supervisor Lofton will serve as the Board's Liaison to the Planning Commission. WELCOME TO NEW COUNTY ATTORNEY, RODERICK WILLIAMS Chairman Wilmot welcomed the new County Attorney, Mr. Roderick (Rod) Williams. Chairman Wilmot announced that Mr. Williams will serve as the Planning Commission's Legal Counsel. 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2185 Minutes of January 16, 2008 -2- ADOPTION OF THE MEETING AGENDA, JANUARY 16, 2008 • Chairman Wilmot announced one change to the agenda for this evening's meeting. Chairman Wilmot added Item 94 Committee Appointments before the public hearing portion of the meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Ours, the Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 1/14/08 Mtg. Conunissioner Light reported that the CPPS elected officers for 2008 and Conm George Kriz was elected as Chairman and Conunissioner Gary Oates as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Light said the CPPS continued their work with the Route 277 Triangle Study, particularly the mapping and land use plans. He said the subcommittee is getting close to reaching a consensus on goals for the study. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 1/15/08 Mtg. • Conunissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed three items: 1) revisions to the HRAB's portion of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; 2) discussion of a possible historic resources website; and, 3) discussion on the identification and mapping of old - family cemeteries. Sanitation Authority — 1/15/08 Mtg. Conunission Unger reported that rainfall for the month of December was slightly over three inches, which is average; groundwater is down considerably and the hope is for more snowfall this winter. Commissioner Unger said plants are operating normally for December due to low groundwater; quarries have stabilized; and hook -up fees were down considerably for 2007, about 40%. Commission Unger said there was positive discussion about consolidation of water and sewer services with the City of Winchester. He added that the new Sanitation Authority Director will be starting on January 21; however, Mr. H. Wellington Jones, the current director, will be staying on for another month or so. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Cormiussioner Light reported that the CEA elected officers with Ms. Diane Kerns as Chairman and Mr. Richard Wilkins as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Light said there was discussion on a CEA • Comprehensive Policy Plan, which could be incorporated within Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. He reported that as a result of the CEA's educational programs, there are numerous persons interested in placing easements on property. Frederick County Planning Conunission Page 2186 Minutes of January 16 2008 -3- 7 CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen continents on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman Wilmot announced the names of the citizens and Commission members who work on the major committees which support the Planning Commission's operation and the County's efforts, as follows: Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS): Plaiming Commission members include Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District, Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District, H. Paige Manuel, At -Large, and June Wilmot, ex officio. Citizen members include Kevin W. Kenney; Claus Bader; Whitney L. Wagner; Scott Marsh; and John Conrad of the Top of Virginia Building Association. Comprehensive Plans& Programs Subcommittee(CPPS): Planning Commnission members include George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District, Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Rick C. • Ours, Opequon District; John Light, Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, ex officio from Opequon, and June M. Wilmot, ex officio from Shawnee District. Citizen members include Marjorie H. Copenhaver; Sue Ann Teal; Jay S. Banks; Robert A. Morris; James W. Golladay, Jr.; Diane Kerns; J.P. Carr, representing the Top of Virginia Builders Association: AI Omdorff, representing Frederick County Public Schools: and H. Wellington Jones, representing the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -30 Signs. Specifically, this ordinance amendment proposes changes to the types of signs allowed, the allowable sign height, and sign size. The amendment also proposes changes to Section 165 -156, Definitions. All individual zoning districts within Chapter 165 will be updated to reflect the changes to the sign regulations. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) endorsed changes to the sign ordinance in January of 2007. She said the changes were then presented to various community organizations and a Sign Ordinance Work Group was formed comprised of DRRS members and representatives from various community interest groups. Ms. Perkins said the DRRS endorsed the Sign Ordinance Work Groups' revisions to the sign ordinance in October of 2007. She said the sign • ordinance was next presented to the Chamber of Commerce and they endorsed the revisions at their meeting on November 29, 2007, Ms. Perkins stated that the sign ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission as a discussion item on December 5, 2007 and was also forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion. Ms. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2187 Minutes of January 16 2008 -4- • Perkins noted that the sign ordinance is being presented to the Planning Conunission this evening as a public hearing. Ms. Perkins explained that some of the major changes to the sign ordinance include: the addition of electronic message signs, increased spacing of 100 feet between free - standing signs, and changes to the height and size of free - standing signs. She said there are minor revisions to building - mounted signs, changes to the number of free - standing signs permitted, and the addition of multi- tenant complex signs, as well as new and revised definitions. In terms of sign height, the existing ordinance is currently based on district regulations; however, the proposed revisions would make sign height based on the road classification of the proposed sign location. Ms. Perkins provided the Commission with the sign heights for each road classification. In terms of free - standing sign size, Ms. Perkins said it is based on franchise or non - franchise businesses. She provided the sign sizes for each road classification for franchise and non - franchise businesses. Ms. Perkins reviewed the other sign ordinance changes with the Commission. Conunissioner Kriz pointed out a typographical correction on Page 6 of both new drafts. Ms. Perkins made a notation of the correction. Commissioner Kriz remarked that those involved with the sign ordinance revisions did a very good job. Conunissioner Ours asked if the revised ordinance included anything on businesses using trucks as signs. Ms. Perkins replied that since a truck sign is not fixed, it would be classified as a portable sign and would not be allowed. Chainnan Wilmot called for citizen comments; however, no one came forward to speak. • Upon motion made by Conunissioner Ours and seconded by Conunissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -30 Signs. Specifically, this ordinance amendment proposes changes to the apes of signs allowed, the allowable sign height, and sign size. The amendment also proposes changes to Section 165 - 156, Definitions. All individual zoning districts within Chapter 165 will be updated to reflect the changes to the sign regulations. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #08 -07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to Ml (Light Industrial), with proffers, for office and warehouse uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. The property is further identified by P.I.N. 75 -A -1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Conunissioner Manuel stated that he would abstain 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 December 19, 2007 meeting, following a lengthy public hearing, to give the applicant time and opportunity to address some of the concems raised throughout the process. In response, the applicant Frederick County Planning Commission Page 21 Minutes of January 16, 2008 -5- ® provided a proffer, dated December 21, 2007, which was included in the Conunission's agenda packet. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that this afternoon, two alternative proffer statements, dated January 16, 2008, were submitted by the applicant to the Planning Department. In addition, correspondence from an adjacent property owner, on behalf of Mr. Carbaugh, was submitted for inclusion in the record. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to review the December 21, 2007 proffers with the Commission. He said the proffers contain several changes and deal with corridor appearance, buffering of adjacent residential uses, and right -of -way dedication. Mr. Ruddy said this element of the proffer appears to be addressed satisfactorily. Referring to the transportation components, a key issue of this project, he said the monetary proffer contribution has a net increase of $25,000 from the previous proffer to $250,000.00 for off -site transportation improvements. In addition, a statement has been included to address the continents raised concerning warehouse distribution. It states that no warehouse- distribution facility greater than 200,000 square -feet shall be constructed on the property within five years of the date of final rezoning. Mr. Ruddy said the conclusion drawn in the staff report following the review of the December 21, 2007 proffers remains similar as before; specifically, the transportation impacts generated by the project, in addition to the transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan, are not fully addressed in the application. Mr. Ruddy said that both he and Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation, had a limited opportunity to review the January 16 proffer alternatives. He said the first alternative is relatively similar to the one in the Commission's agenda package. However, the second alternative is quite different and removes the ability of the applicant to construct the road along their property, in favor of a monetary contribution in the amount of $500.000.00. Mr. Ruddy said it was his opinion and Mr. Bishop's that none of the three proffer statements fully addresses the transportation impacts generated by this request or will further the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation, stated it has been well proven through the MPO Modeling Process and the Long -Range Transportation Plan that the number one transportation improvement for this region is how the Stephens City Bypass, the Exit 307 Relocation, and the tie -in with Route 37 collectively come together. Mr. Bishop said balancing this priority with the fact the collector road between Route 1 I and Shady Elm Drive will be an on- going, local improvement, it is difficult to say which improvement is more important, especially for citizens trying to do business and live in this vicinity. However, from a global perspective, he believed the regional improvement would take precedence over the local improvement, even though they are both very important Commissioner Light commented that considering the number of acres that could potentially develop with the Artillery Business Center property and the Carbaugh property, a full change in Shady Elm Road and its intersections will be required. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Collector Road will also be needed in order for the total transportation network in the area to be realized. Mr. Benjamin M. Butler, attorney, was representing the applicant. Mr. Butler said his client realizes the Conunission's dislike for receiving last- minute revised proffers; however, due to conversations that have taken place, Mr. Butler believed it was unavoidable. Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, reviewed the differences between the two alternative proffers and the December 21 proffer statement for the Commission. Mr. Sowers explained that Alternative One is the most similar to the December 21 proffer and provides for the same roadway construction; specifically, the 1,100 feet within an 80 -foot right -of -way of the East -West Collector Road. In addition, he said the $250,000.00 off -site monetary proffer has been maintained. Mr. Sowers said the changes • include: widening of the road along the improved property frontage with Shady Elm adequate for a double stripe; a statement that the applicant will fully fmrd the design of the at -grade crossing, should an at -grade crossing be obtained from the railroad for the East -West Collector Road by either Frederick County or others, an escalator Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2189 Minutes of January 16, 2009 • clause to ensure monetary contributions made to the County after 30 months from the date of final rezoning will be adjusted for inflation; and, the use of evergreen trees exclusively between the proposed bicycle trail and the parking areas, rather than a mix of deciduous and evergreens. Regarding Alternative Two, Mr. Sowers said the East -West Collector Road is not shown on the property and the cash contribution is increased to $500,000 and phased over three building pemnts. He said Altemative Two provides for fully funding the design of an at -grade crossing of the railroad, as well as the escalator clause and the use of evergreens exclusively. He said Alternative Two also includes the double striping of Shady Elm along the improved property frontage. Summarizing the content of the alternatives, Mr. Sowers said Alternative One contains 1,100 feet of a Comprehensive Policy Plan roadway and $250,000.00 for off -site traffic mitigation, Alternative Two has no Comprehensive Policy Plan roadway construction, but the monetary proffer has been increased to $500,000.00. Chairman Wilmot next read the correspondence from Mr. Wayne W. Carbaugh for Mr. Henry J. Carbaugh, the owner of Knoll Dale Farm, dated January 16, 2008, Mr. Butler retumed to the poditmn to address Mr. Carbaugh's letter. Mr. Butler said it was the applicants' opinion that the price Mr. Carbaugh is asking for right -of -way across his property for an East -West Collector is cost prohibitive to their project. Mr. Butler said that within the next three to four years, lie believed either Mr. Carbaugh, or someone who has purchased Mr. Carbaugh's property, will approach the County for a rezoning of this land. He said a rezoning of this property complies with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); lie pointed out the existing concentration of industry and commercial uses around the interstate and close to the major roads. He said the Renaissance development is in place on Route 11, and when the Carbaugh property comes on line, the road will be constructed, with the only remaining issue being the crossing of the railroad line. Mr. Butler questioned what fair share this project should be asked to contribute to Frederick Comity; lie said a true model is not available for commercial development to • know what is expected. Mr. Butler said the applicants believe that by building the inter - connector road and by providing $250,000.00 for signalization at the Apple Valley and Shady Elm intersection, they have met their fair contribution. Commissioner Light was concemed about possible complications with the railroad granting an agreement for a railway crossing; he said it would hold up construction of the East -West Collector, and the implications to Shady Elm, Apple Valley, and Route 11 will become a reality. He said the County does not have a guarantee, but if the County agrees to a rezoning, the applicant has the ability to proceed with impacts on the road infrastructure. Commissioner Light believed the proper time to approve the rezoning would be with dhe Carbaugh property and with an agreement from the railroad in hand. Mr. Ronald Mislowsky, traffic engineer with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, said the applicant is addressing both the need to start the East -West Connector, with their proffer to construct 1,100 feet of roadway, and the need to address impacts on Apple Valley Road, with their monetary proffer of $250,000.00, to be used as VDOT determines, and with funding the design of a railroad crossing. He said VDOT can't determine where the road improvements will be needed until the other existing uses are up and running. Chairman Wilmot next called for public continents and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. James E. Clark, a resident at 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road, Shawnee District, came forward to express his concerns on transportation issues. It was Mr. Clark's opinion that the applicant could not possibly provide all of the highway improvements required to support this IS development; he enumerated what the applicant's own TIA deemed to be necessary. Mr. Clark said a pledge of $250,000.00 for highway design and construction, and additional right -of -way width on Shady Elm Road, were generous, but were no assurance of the multi- million dollar transportation improvements needed. He believed Frederick Comity should have an approved scheduling and funding plan for major highway upgrades. Mr. Clark Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2190 Minutes of January 16, 2008 -7- believed the rezoning should be denied based on unacceptable and unmitigated impacts. Mr. Benjamin Montgomery, speaking on behalf of Prosperity Properties, an adjoining property owner, said they are very much in favor of this proposal and believe the applicant has done a good job of providing their fair share of what is expected. Mr. Montgomery was in favor of this site being developed. Mr. James Sluss, a resident at 750 Shady Elm Road in the Back Creek District, stated that the revised proffer statement basically concedes the unlikelihood of a bridge being built because it refers to a crossing, rather than a bridge. He said Proffer Alternative One is basically the same as what was presented at the last meeting and was rejected by the Conunission as inadequate. Mr. Sluss pointed out that the TIA was based on assessments made a year ago and does not include the existing situation with the FedEx facility and other development along Apple Valley Road. Mr. Sluss believed that until the transportation situation is satisfactorily addressed, a currently bad situation on Route 11 and Apple Valley will only be made worse. Ms. Kitty Hockman- Nicholas of Hedgebrook Farm, located directly across from the property under consideration, stated she has three platted residential lots parallel to Shady Elm Road. Ms. Heckman - Nicholas described her "green' farm and talked about her nearby subdivision, the first "green" subdivision in Frederick County. She asked for the following items to be addressed: traffic issues, walking and bicycle paths, a minimum 200 -foot setback, high - density tree plantings, green landscaping and developing, and solar lighting and power. Ms. Hockman- Nicholas urged the Comity to attract quality businesses to the area. She said the time was not right for this proposal; she feared horrific traffic congestion and safety issues for bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Gregory Brown, a resident in Hedgebrook Hills off Shady Elm Road, asked the Commission to require a Category C buffer, consisting of 150 feet of inactive distance and 50 feet of active buffer, along • Shady Elm Road so the project would be more palatable to the area residents. Mr. Brown stated the ground in this area has a high concentration of limestone, which contains asbestos and will be released into the air during construction; he asked if there were plans to protect the surrounding area from airborne asbestos. He asked about possible interruption of residential well water systems during construction and who would be responsible. Mr. Brown said the existing road network will not be able to support the increased usage caused by this project and other area projects currently underway; he described the traffic congestion he experiences daily on Route 11. Ms. Liz Hunter, a resident of Hedgebrook Hills, said the residents had presented a letter to the applicant requesting he consider the aesthetics and use of the property and none of the suggestions they made were addressed in the applicant's proffer statement dated January 16, 2008. Ms. Hunter asked the Commission to hold this applicant to a higher standard regarding screening, buffering, and landscaping. She requested a 50 -foot height restriction on the buildings and a restriction on warehouse and distribution centers. Ms. Hunter also mentioned flaws in the applicant's TIA because it did not include the FedEx and Opus projects. Ms. Andrea Habron, a resident of Back Creek District, was concerned about the landscaping adjacent to her property and several other residents, who were within 1,000 feet of this project. She presented a drawing of the landscaping preferred by the residents; she said it was the same proposal previously made by the residents to the applicant. Ms. Habron pointed out that the applicant's revised landscaping proffer removed the deciduous trees and uses evergreens exclusively. Furthermore, she did not think the five -foot area designated for landscaping was large enough for trees to grow. Ms. Habron also preferred increased setbacks. In addition, Ms. Habron said the residents had requested the applicant proffer out warehousing and distribution. She said these uses are not on the Economic Development Conunission's targeted business list. Mr. Darrell Habron, a resident at 188 Hockman Court, had concerns about the absence of an • agreement between the property owner /applicant, Venture L and the adjoining property owner, the Carbaughs, on the purchase of right -of -way. Mr. Habron questioned the integrity of the applicant because of the tardiness in the submission of revised proffers and he questioned whether the applicant could truly afford or was willing to supply Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2191 Minutes of January 16, 2008 the needed transportation infrastructure. It was Mr. Habron's opinion that the transportation issues had not been resolved. • Mr. Edgar Tufts, a resident of Cross Creek, said the primary concern of citizens living in this area was the lack of an adequate plan to take care of the traffic, not money to finance and carry it through, or VDOT approvals. He predicted that with so much development taking place, there would be a need for widening roads and installing traffic signals at Cross Creek and Shady Elm. He said the average age of residents on his street is at least 70 and he had safety concerns with the traffic. Mr. Tufts stated there were no guarantees that money would be available to appropriately take care of the transportation infrastructure. Ms. Allison Mora, a resident on Heckman Court, said she just recently moved to Frederick County from southern Maryland, which is also having an explosion of development, and she understood the impact of new development and roads. She said it seems there is a discrepancy with this proposal because the transportation issues have not been addressed fully. Ms. Mora asked the Commission to require that transportation be fully addressed and clearly understood and that a clear plan is in place to lake care of the traffic that will come, not only with Artillery Business Center, but the other developments currently underway. Ms. Joanna Brown, a resident of Hockman Court and Shady Elm, expressed her concems about the lack of certainty for the provision of adequate transportation infrastructure. She was in favor of having a transportation plan in place and of requiring each proposal to supply an appropriate level of participation. She also asked for assurances that local residents' well water supply would not be affected. A letter from Robert and Donna Diaz, residents at 1006 Shady Elm Road, who could not be present, was read by Ms. Joanna Brown. The Diaz letter expressed concerns that the application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the proposed project, that area roads will not be able to handle the increased traffic from this project, as well as the FedEx and Opus projects, the concern for possible detriment to • adjoining residential proper[}; and the possibility of fax increases to pay for infrastructure. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public continent portion of the meeting. Mr. Butler returned to the podium to make final statements. Mr. Butler recognized the citizens concerns regarding traffic; however, he pointed out there were traffic problems all over Frederick County and this applicant did not create the traffic problems in this immediate vicinity. He said under the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, applicants must mitigate traffic impacts created by their project and that is what this applicant has tried to do. Mr. Butler said this applicant has made a good faith effort. He read a portion of VDOT's review evaluation from the staff report, as follows: "_. through a combination ofpreviously proposed proffers, as well as the current proffers by the application, (it appears) the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed." Mr. Butler said he interpreted V DOT's comments to mean that what has been proffered is fair and equitable, and does meet the impact this project has produced. Mr. Mark Lynch, a partner in Venture I of Winchester, LLC, the developers of the property under consideration, addressed the continents made by one of the citizens concerning meetings with Mr. Carbaugh on agreements to purchase property for right -of -way. Mr. Lynch believed this was a great project and they had addressed much of the TIA. He hoped for a positive recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Patrick Sowers returned to the podium and showed an aerial photograph depicting the existing M I Zoning and the partially developed M I land mass around the subject property. Mr. Sowers stated this was a comprehensive- planned industrial area and has the benefit of being a tax generator. He said it would . go against the Comprehensive Policy Plan to say this property is in a residential area and to force additional Frederick County Planning Commission rage Z n v2 Minutes of January 16, 2008 am • buffers. He noted that providing a 150 -foot buffer along the property frontage decreases the net acreage by four acres. He said the County has a certain landmass comprehensively planned for industrial; he did not think it was appropriate to provide 150 feet of active buffers across the property frontage. Mr. Sowers said they have gone above and beyond what other projects have done along Shady Elm Road; he said they have provided an extremely dense vegetative screen for an industrial area. Conunissioner Unger asked about the height of proposed structures and Mr. Sowers replied the applicant has proffered 60 feet. Regarding procedural issues, Mr. Ruddy stated that the Planning Commission has previously tabled this application, both on behalf of the Commission and one time on the part of the applicant. Mr. Ruddy said that considering time restraints, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at this time. The Commission and the staff discussed procedural appropriateness in light of the applicant's submittal of two alternative proffer statements. Mr. Roderick Williams, legal counsel to the Planning Commission, did not believe the two revised proffers presented any new legal issues beyond those raised in prior proffer versions. Mr. Williams next advised the Commission procedurally on how to entertain a motion, considering the two alternative proffer revisions. Members of the Commission questioned the appropriateness of the Commission choosing between alternative sets of proffers. They also raised the issue again of the appropriateness on acting when revised proffers were submitted on the evening of the public hearing. • Commissioner Walt made a motion to deny the rezoning application. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Light and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning #08 -07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to MI (Light Industrial), with proffers, for office and warehouse uses. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY) Molm, Kriz, Ours, Light, Oates, Walt NO: Triplett, Wilmot, Unger ABSTAIN Manuel (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) OTHER Commissioner Unger suggested the Commission put forward a declaration that the Commission will no longer accept or choose between alternative options on proffers for rezoning. Commissioner Unger • suggested placing the statement in the land use application or in the zoning ordinance itself. Commissioner Ours suggested putting forth an additional declaration that the Conunission will not accept proffer amendments the day of consideration. A suggestion was made for the proffer revision deadline to be the Friday before the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2193 Minutes of January 16, 2008 -10- • Commissioner Light believed all proffer revisions should be reviewed by the Count- Attorney before review by the Planning Commission. Commission members decided to task the Bylaws Committee with this issue. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, 1� . /A, J / V f� Wilmot, Chairman Secretary • 11 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2194 Minutes of January 16, 2008