Loading...
PC_09-03-08_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE 0 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 3, 2008. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chai man/Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Frank Sublett, City of Winchester Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; Amber Powers, Planner II; 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 Cormmissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the September 3, 2008 meeting. Transportation Committee - 08/25/08 Mtg. Commissioner Oates presented a detailed report on eight items discussed by the Transportation Comrnittee. The topics reviewed by Commissioner Oates included: 1) an update on the NELUP Transportation Plan; 2) a request by the Town of Stephens City for a reduction in speed limits along Route 11, near the Town; 3) a request by Warren County for truck restrictions on Route 627; 4) a discussion of stoplight cameras was delayed until Sheriff Department comments were available; 5) proposed TIA standards; 6) a request by the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation for endorsement of a grant to renovate their offices and information center, 7) discussion of the Northern Shenandoah Valley Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan presented by Access Independence; and 8) discussion of the county-wide road plan for the Comprehensive Policy Plan. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2322 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -2- Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 08/28/08 Mtg. 4P Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS had four topics of discussion: 1) revisions to the ordinance to implement revised lighting standards; particularly, light pollution associated with outdoor lighting and the provision of sufficient lighting for security and safety around industrial parks and parking areas, 2) finalization of the new zoning ordinance for the Office - Manufacturing Park District to implement the mixed use for industrial and office land as a classification in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; 3) review of buffer requirements for manufacturing against industrial and industrial against commercial with a railroad line between; and buffer requirements for residential across from an industrial or manufacturing park; 4) revisions to 165 -58, age - restricted, multi - family housing; structure height was the major area of contention and the DRRS is recommending an increase in height from 45 feet to 60 feet based on a waiver request, not by right. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) Commissioner Watt reported the CEA voted unanimously to recommend the Board of Supervisors accept and hold the easement for the Snapp property. In addition, he said the CEA held a fund- raiser on AugusH 2, 2008 for anyone wishing to learn more about conservation easements; approximately 30 people attended and $300 4400 was raised. Commissioner Watt said anyone wishing to obtain an application has up until December 31, 2008 to file. • Rural Areas Working Group - 08/21/08 Mtg. Commissioner Manuel reported the Rural Areas Working Group meets on the first and third Thursdays at 7:30 p.m. He said input is being collected from committee members, Planning Commissioners, Supervisors, and the public and a website has been established. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit Application #09 -08 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial telecommunications facility at 1203 Redbud Road (Rt. 661). This property is identified with Property Identification Number 55- A -129A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. is Action — Tabled for 45 Days Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2323 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -3- Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from discussion and voting on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest. ® Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this application is for a 195 - foot monopole -type commercial telecommunications facility. Mr. Cheran stated that commercial telecommunications facilities in the Rural Areas are subject to additional performance standards in order to mitigate negative impacts on residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic values. He said the zoning ordinance requires the applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility and possible collocation structures within the proposed service area. He added that the proposed 195 -foot monopole -type telecommunications facility will be located on a 33- acre site on Redbud Road (Rt. 661), a designated Virginia Byway. This location is outside of the UDA (Urban Development Area), but is located within the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan) and is adjacent to a developmentally - sensitive area (DSA) as noted in the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Cheranpointed out comments received on this proposal from the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). Mr. Cheran stated that the designation of Redbud Road as a designated Virginia Byway takes into consideration the scenic landscape, historic civil war battlefields, and environmentally significant nature of the area. He added that the general surrounding area of this proposed site contains sites of significant historical importance; these sites include the Third Winchester Battlefield, Hackwood, and Milburn Road. Mr. Cheran stated that the staff does not concur with the applicant that there are no eligible existing facilities or appropriate structures available for collocation in this general area; he said staff has identified possible collocation sites within a three -mile radius of this proposed site. Mr. Cheran stated that the proposed request is not in conformance with the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County and the impacts associated with the request cannot be mitigated. Mr. Cheran next read a list ofrecormnended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate. • Commissioner Ruckman asked if there were any considerations given to the fact that is tower was proposed within the Redbud Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Cheran replied that the County has traditionally allowed conditional use permits for telecommunications towers within the agricultural districts. Mr. Glen Hodge, an attorney with the law firm of Wharton, Walheizer and Weaver, from Harrisonburg, Virginia, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Hodge introduced his colleague, Mr. Jim Johnson, and other members of the team representing Shenandoah Mobile Company ( Shentel), which included Mr. Lynn Griese and Mr. Lynn Koerner, Site Acquisition and Project Development Consultants with Shenandoah Mobile Company ( Shentel), and Mr. William McGallick with Triad Engineering. Mr. Hodge said there was a demonstrated need for cell phone and broad band improvements in this particular area. He said that Shentel recognized the sites mentioned by the staff; however, they already have antennas on the towers mentioned. He said Shentel believes the collocation cannot be met in this situation. Mr. Hodge discussed the requirements the applicant must meet with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition, he said this application meets all of the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Mr. Hodge said Shentel believes there is a demonstrated need to provide the necessary coverage for their customers and the service will improve cell communication plus broad band communication and they believed it would not have a negative impact on the surrounding community. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Hodge if the applicant understood Condition 46, stipulating that a Virginia registered professional engineer shall provide verification the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower would be contained in an area around the tower with a radius equal to or less than setback measured from the centerline of the base of • the tower. Commissioner Thomas said since the applicant is leasing a 100 -foot by 100 -foot block, the tower Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2324 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -4- would have to be contained within the 100 -foot block. Mr. Hodge said it was his understanding the collapsed tower would be contained within the boundary line of the property. Commissioner Thomas said before he would vote positively on this application, a resolution regarding the issue of the collapsed tower must occur. Mr. Roderick Williams, legal counsel for the Planning Commission, advised the Commission on the correct interpretation regarding the possibility of a collapsed tower. Mr. Williams said the correct interpretation would be the edge of the total property tract. He explained that were the tower to fall within that area, the land it would be falling on would still be land that is owned by the same person who is leasing it to the telephone provider. Mr. Williams added that the interest cannot be separated; the leased area is not a subdivision and, therefore, is the same property even though there is a limited leased area. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments. The following persons came forward to speak: Mr. William G. Meier said he was building a house in Woodsmill, close to where the tower is proposed. Mr. Meier was concerned about the health issues associated with cell towers. He read an article for the Commission that he obtained from the intemet. The article stated that, "computer simulation and measurements used in the study both show that radiation in the inner area within 400 meters is 100 times higher, compared to the outer area, mainly due to additional emissions coming from secondary lobes of the transmitter." He asked if there were established limits to the wattage of a tower. Mr. Meier's second concern was the destruction of the view shed along a designated Virginia Byway. He said the visual impact will be greater during the winter, when there arc no leaves on the trees. Another concern was the fact that the proposed location was within the Agricultural and Forestal District; he said about three 30 -inch oaks have been marked for removal. Mr. Meier did not believe this was an appropriate location for a tower and he was opposed to the application. Mrs. Bobby Meier said that she has full cell phone signal and has no complaints about her cell • phone service in this area. Mrs. Meier was also very concerned about the health issues associated with telecommunications facilities. Ms. Trudy Dixon, a resident on Red Bud Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District, was opposed to the Shenandoah Mobile Company's application for a telecommunications facility. Ms. Dixon said the residents along Red Bud Road have gone to great lengths to preserve the Waal nature of their community, they have established an Agricultural and Forestal District, and they are located on a Virginia Scenic Byway. She said a 195 -foot commercial telecommunications facility is not in keeping with the rural and scenic nature of this part of the County, nor does it conform to Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. She noted that these points are prominent in the HRAB's recommendation for denial. She said she already has excellent cell phone service; the proposed site is approximately 2,600 feet from her residence and would provide redundant coverage. Ms. Dixon believed the proposed facility was meant to serve the residents of Snowden Bridge and the northwestern area of Clarke County. She said she did not seethe need for anew cell tower in an area with so few residents and who already have cell phone service. She was especially concerned about the visual affects this structure would have on the Waal nature of the community. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Mr. Hodge returned to the podium to respond to some of the citizen comments. Regarding the health concerns, he said the FCC determines the signal strength for radio frequencies and the County does not have input on that particular determination. Regarding the comment regarding the service area, he said the way in which the antennas are cited and located to provide the signal, it is not intended or will be providing any signal into Clarke County, it is for the area within Frederick County. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2325 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -5- Conuuissioner Mohn mentioned that the fact Red Bud Road is designated scenic byway, does the ® County have any additional obligation in terms of a review perspective or are there any implications if the County was to approve something that would have arguably a detrimental visual impact, would it compromise the designation in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Cheran replied that the State Code indicates it should not impact any land use decisions; however, it is left up to the localities. Commissioner Thomas asked if this was the first scenic byway in Frederick County with a cell tower and Mr. Cheran replied yes, as far as he could determine. Mr. Cheran pointed out the school site as an alternate collocation site, which is outside of the scenic byway area. Mr. Cheran also pointed out the DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area) in this particular area of Frederick Comity. Mr. Cheran recalled that when the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District was created, part of the plan included the Third Battle of Winchester, Hackvvood, and Civil War Trails and all are included within the DSA. He said the DSA is a little more south of Red Bud Road and wraps around up through the Milburn Road corridor. Commissioner Thomas referred to recommended Condition 46 and stated it should read, "A Virginia registered professional engineer," not a "certified Virginia engineer" to have the correct temrinology. Mr. Lynn Griese, Site Acquisition and Project Development Consultant with Shenandoah Mobile Company, spoke about the collocation issue. Mr. Griese said Shenandoah Mobile Company prefers to collocate when they are able, he said the construction of a tower is a huge investment and also involves leasing and operating expenses. He mentioned the various sites in the area where they are currently collocating. Mr. Griese said they looked at the school property, but it did not propagate well enough. • Members of the Commission noted that with previous cell tower reviews there is usually an engineer available showing that no service is available at a particular location. They were not convinced that the proposed tower was a necessity at this location. Other commissioners agreed and were also concerned about protecting the County's viewsheds. Commissioner Ruckman believed the proposed tower location was too close to the DSA and a Designated Virginia Byway and he agreed with the recommendations of the HRAB stating that the benefits in terms of additional coverage levels as shown on the applicant's coverage map did not warrant the cost of the proposed tower's impact on the area's viewshed. He also agreed with the staffs conclusion that the request was not in conformance with the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the impacts of the request cannot be mitigated. Commissioner Ruckman next made a motion that the CUP #09 -08 of Shenandoah Mobile Company be denied. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz. This motion was defeated, however, due to a tie vote, as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Unger, Watt, Manuel, Ruckman, Kriz NO: Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn ABSTAIN Oates (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2326 Minutes of September 3, 2008 A new motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to recommend approval of the CUP 909 -08 ® of Shenandoah Mobile Company with amended terminology to Condition #6, changing the text to, "A Virginia registered professional engineer." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn. This motion was defeated, however, due to the following tie vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Manuel, Ruckman, Kriz ABSTAIN Oates (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Conunissioner Kerr commented many of the concerns that were raised this evening centered on the fact that the applicant has not proven the tower is needed. He said given the opportunity to address this issue, some of the votes may change. Therefore, Commissioner Kerr made a motion to table CUP #09 -08 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for 45 days to provide the applicant the opportunity to gather further information. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas. This motion was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Conditional Use Permit 409 -08 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial telecommunications facility at 1203 Redbud Road (Rt. 66 1) for 45 days to provide the applicant the opportunity to gather further information on why the tower is needed at this particular location. The majority vote was: • YES (TO TABLE) Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Ruckman, Kriz ABSTAIN Oates (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit 910 -08 of Adam Arkfeld for a Cottage Occupation for a Motel/ Bed & Breakfast at 250 Sister Chipmunk Lane. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 34 -A -98 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 45 Days Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for motel uses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP); he said a bed and breakfast qualifies as a motel use. Mr. Cheran said the proposed three - bedroom bed and breakfast will take place on 58 acres of land. He stated the applicant will be limited to a total of six guests and no other activities will be associated on -site with this proposed use. He noted the nearest structures from the proposed use are more than 150 feet away. Mr. Cheran said there will be no employees associated with • the proposed use, other than those residing on -site. He next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find the use to be appropriate. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2327 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -7- Mr. Adam Arkfeld, the applicant and owner of the property, came forward to answer questions from the Commission. In response to a question from the Commission regarding the Health Department's ® comment that no water testing was required for the limited number of potential guests, Mr. Arkfeld read from a letter he received from the Health Department. The letter stated that in order to fall under the Health Department's water testing requirements, the use must be considered "public." He said the Health Department considers "public" use to have at least 25 persons a day for a minimum of 60 days per year. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Kevin Bradford, Adam Arkfeld's brother -in -law, and his wife, Annette Arkfeld Bradford, Adam Arkfeld's older sister, were opposed to the proposed business because the potential increase in noise, traffic, and numbers of people will not enhance or maintain the beauty and tranquility which currently exists on Sister Chipmunk Lane. Mr. Bradford provided a history of the property, beginning in April of 2005, when his wife and her brothers came to an agreement enabling them to subdivide the family farm. He said a four -lot subdivision with covenants was created and his brother -in -law's lot was divided off separate from the subdivision. Mr. Bradford said the agreement was contingent upon he and his wife fully financing and constructing an access road through their property for Mr. Arkfeld to reach his future home site on the fifth lot, even though Mr. Arkfeld had his own road access to his property from Shady Creek Road. He said the list of covenants established for the subdivision stipulated that no businesses or non - residential uses were permitted. Mr. Bradford said in July of 2008, Mr. Arkfeld informed them he had sold a lot from his property with access on their subdivision access road, Sister Chipmunk Lane, and the new owners signed the subdivision covenants. Mr. Bradford said Mr. Arkfeld also informed him that he planned to have occasional yoga weekends and seminars at his home; he said the house has a large exercise room with dressing rooms and multiple showers. Mr. Bradford said they did not have any idea Mr. Arkfeld was planning a motel/ bed and breakfast until they received a formal notification from the County about the public hearing. Mr. Bradford said as creators of the original subdivision and owners of the three remaining lots, they did not believe a commercial business was appropriate in the . neighborhood. He also objected to Mr. Arkfeld's manipulation of their subdivision to suite his own purposes. In addition, he questioned the appropriateness of everyone abiding by the covenants except Mr. Arkfeld. He had numerous questions on how the exterior of Mr. Arkfeld's home would be changed to accommodate a business and parking lot for a motel use. He inquired about outdoor lighting and he suggested that access to the bed and breakfast be via Mr. Arkfeld's Shady Creek Road access, not Sister Chipmunk Lane. He asked what outdoor activities would be permitted and he presented the Commission with photographs of bicycle trails going through the woods on their subdivision property. Mr. Brad Grove said he had a family farm located adjacent to the northern tip of Mr. Arkfeld's property and has known the Arkfelds for 40 years. Mr. Grove said they excavated the road through this property. Mr. Groves was concerned about the number and presence of outsiders through these woods because he and his family of five sons are hunters. Mr. Tim Gotson, property owner at 141 Sister Chipmunk Lane, said he was also a business owner in Frederick County. Mr. Gotson said that as a small- business owner, he understood the principles behind conditional use permits and the purpose for separating business use from residential use. He didn't think it was wise to build a home on the intent of later opening it as a business, having access through a neighborhood, and banking everything on a conditional use permit because of the restrictions and stipulations. Mr. Gotson said his property is at the beginning of this subdivision and he will be impacted the most. He presented photographs showing Mr. Arkfeld's land and access; he questioned why Mr. Arkfeld is choosing to use their subdivision road to access his home which is about one mile up the road. Mr. Gotson said Mr. Arkfeld's home is difficult to find; he said under CUP regulations, a sign is only permitted on Mr. Arkfeld's land and this presents a problem for guests entering through their subdivision. Mr. Gotson said since he is the first home entering this subdivision, on any given night, he will be inundated with traveling people stopping at his door expecting it to be the bed and • breakfast. He said the road is not well marked and the property is not laid out or planned well. Mr. Gotson said Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2328 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -8- that Mr. Arkfeld did not discuss his intent with any of the neighbors. He disagreed with the staffs continents that the proposed use would not have any signifrcan4 impacts on the adjoining properties; he believed he would ® definitely be impacted and a business at this location was not a good idea or well planned. He also believed it could be detrimental to the sale of the final two lots. Mr. Eric Arkfeld, a brother of Mr. Adam Arkfeld and an adjoining property owner, envisioned his brother's proposal to be a weekend -type retreat with probably only six people a weekend. Mr. Arkfeld said this property had a beautiful view and is a beautiful location. He said he didn't think the proposed use would have a major impact on anyone. Mrs. Janet Arkfeld, the mother of Mr. Adam Arkfeld, said she is her son's closest neighbor and her home is about one -fourth mile from the back of her son's house. Mrs. Arkfeld spoke favorably about her son's proposal for a bed and breakfast and she supported him. Mrs. Sonya May said she was the newest property owner on Mr. Adam Arkfeld's property. She had no problems with the proposed conditional use permit. Mrs. Margo Johnson said she was the property owner of the first lot sold in this subdivision. She said she and her husband purchased this property because it was picturesque and still a part of the old Frederick County. Mrs. Johnson said the home owners have put hundreds of dollars into maintaining Sister Chipmunk Lane. She said when Mr. Arkfeld, who does not have to provide money to help maintain the road, started construction of his home, heavy construction equipment destroyed the lane and it now has deep ruts, mud puddles, and the gravel is strewn into the grass areas. Mrs. Johnson asked why Mr. Arkfeld could not use his other access for the bed and breakfast. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the • hearing. Commissioner Kerr asked the applicant why he wished to use Sister Chipmunk Lane as the access to his proposed bed and breakfast as opposed to his other access. Commissioner Kerr also asked the applicant about the comments made that he had not contributed financially towards road maintenance. Mr. Arkfeld replied the road was deeded to him without restriction for access to his house site before the subdivision was created. He said the other access is his mother's driveway which terminates on her lot. He did not think it was reasonable for her to provide an access easement across her property and it was not possible to go around her property because of the steep topography. Mr. Arkfeld said he is responsible for a majority of the road maintenance and he contributed towards the underground utilities, he said he paid for the entire conduit as part of the agreement. Commissioner Oates inquired about what was planned for outdoor activities, such as bicycle trails, and he questioned the applicant about any trails crossing over onto someone else's property. Mr. Arkfeld said he wanted to offer amenities and he has 58 acres to accommodate bike trails. He said he would respect his neighbors' wishes and post the property, if that was their desire. Mr. Arkfeld said the yoga studio is an amenity for guests and would be a weekend retreat; he said he does not plan to have regular public yoga classes. Commissioner Oates said he would like to review a copy of the road maintenance agreement before voting on this CUP. Commission members were presented with a copy of the deed. Commissioner Oates read from Page 531, Item 22, "Adam Arkfeld, owner of adjacent 73.507 acres is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and snow removal of subdivision road. Thereafter, the owner of each dwelling in the subdivision shall be responsible for 20% of the cost of such maintenance, repair, and snow removal payable annually in the amount of $200.00 and Adam Arkfeld shall be responsible for the balance." Commissioner Oates said each person coming • in is responsible for 20 %; he asked Mr. Arkfeld if there were more than five lots on the road besides his. It was Frederick County Planning Commission Page 23 Minutes of September 3, 2008 -9- determined there were four lots within the subdivision his sister created, plus Mr. Arkfeld's house, plus the newest homeowners, the Mays, for a total of six lots. Commissioner Oates commented that Mr. Arkfeld will not ® be financially responsible for road maintenance once five lots are established and Mr. Arkfeld will be having commercial traffic on the road. Commissioner Oates asked Mr. Arkfeld how much money he contributed last year to the road maintenance and Mr. Arkfeld replied that he didn't place any additional gravel because he wanted to wait until all of the construction traffic was done. Commissioner Oates asked Mr. Arkfeld who determines when the road needs repaired and what each individual's share will be. Commissioner Oates said he would be more comfortable if there was a road agreement between all of the property owners which clearly defines all of these issues because the neighbors are upset over this issue. Commission members questioned whether the road maintenance issue was referred to within the property deed or the subdivision covenants. Mr. Cheran said that covenants and deeds arebeyond thejurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Commissioners recognized the opposition voiced by the neighbors. Commissioner Oates thought an effort should be made by the applicant to talk with his neighbors and an attempt made to work out an agreement on maintaining the road. Commissioner Oates made a motion to table the application for 45 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Conditional Use Permit # 10 -08 of Adam Arkfeld for a Cottage Occupation for a Motel/ Bed & Breakfast at 250 Sister Chipmunk Lane for 45 days to allow time for the applicant to meet with the property owners along Sister Chipmunk Lane in an attempt to work out an agreement on road maintenance. The majority vote was • YES (TO TABLE) Unger, Watt, Ambrogi, Manuel, Ruckman, Oates, Kriz, Mohn NO: Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) STANDARDS Deputy Director - Transportation, John A. Bishop, presented a draft of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards under development by the staff and the Transportation Committee. Mr. Bishop said the purpose of the standards is to ensure the County continues to have TIAs submitted when necessary and not just when required by VDOT's new Chapter 527 regulations. In addition, he said they are also meant to ensure the quality and completeness of the analysis and for the analysis to be presented in the most readable manner possible. Mr. Bishop noted that the ultimate desire is for a product that does not need to be debated at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors level, allowing the focus to be on the impacts as opposed to the study. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2330 Minutes of September 3, 2009 -10- Commissioner Thomas said he would like to see language included stating that if the majority or a significant amount of the traffic is from vehicles in excess of two axles, (18- wheelers), and if there is a storage ® facility or an industrial facility that's generating 1,000 trucks a day, it would not meet the minimum requirement, but a lower minimum should be set; and further state that if more than half or more than 500 trips are generated per day by vehicles with more than two axles, then a TIA is required, so an analysis and traffic impact is presented. He said an 18- wheeler is equivalent to three to four cars and will generate considerable congestion. Commissioner Oates added a comment from the development community which was that Chapter 527 is the top limit which the State will require; and the development community was looking for a lower limit, once you reach this threshold or lower, a TIA won't be required. However, the way the draft standards are written, it was basically Mr. Bishop's purview and he can require it for anything at any time and there is no lower exception. The development community said if a certain amount of impact is not created, then they will not be — required to do a TIA because they are small enough. Let the middle point be where Mr. Bishop could grant a waiver. Commissioner Oates said that even a small TIA will cost about $10,000 415,000. Cormnissioner Thomas hoped that once the traffic impact analysis standards were in place, there would be enough specificity so it not only meets the minimum required by the State, but for the County as well. He favored establishing a system whereby if application packages are received with TIAs that do not meet the County's minimum standards, they are removed from the agenda and postponed, even if the application has already been advertised. Mr. Bishop's preference was that meeting the criteria was a part of the completeness of the application; if the criteria are not met, then the application is not complete. Commissioner Oates asked about the status of the traffic impact model that was being worked on over the summer. Mr. Bishop expected a meeting of the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee within the next month. Commissioner Oates asked if it was reasonable to expect it to be brought before the Commission as a public hearing before the end of the year. Mr. Bishop believed the staff would be open to that time frame. • OTHER RED HAWK ESTATES POSTPONEMENT Chairman Wilmot announced that representatives for Red Hawk Estates have requested a postponement of their September 17, 2008 return to the Planning Commission until November 19, 2008. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to postpone consideration of Red Hawk Estates until November 19, 2008. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2331 Minutes of September 3, 2009 -11— ADJOURNMENT ® There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote. • • Wilmot, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2332 Minutes of September 3, 2008 Respectfully submitted,