PC_04-15-09_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 April 15, 2009.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chainnan/Opequon
District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District, Richard Ruckman, Stonewall
District; LawTenec R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz,
Gaincsboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton,
Board of Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director,
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; and
Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
g o CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted the April 15, 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting.
Chairman Wilmot welcomed the newly- appointed Opequon District Commissioner, Mr. Brian
Madagan, to the Planning Commission.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 04/03/09 Mtg.
Conunissioner Kerr reported on two main topics of discussion by the EDC. The first was the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2452
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-2-
_ Small Business Development Center's Annual Report provided by Mr. Sirbaugh. Mr. Sirbaugh reported that
according to his statistics, he is busier than ever, not only with helping struggling businesses, but also with people
who want to start new businesses in the area. Secondly, a presentation was made by Mr. Gene Shultz of the
Virginia Emplo}7tment Conunission. Mr. Shultz reported that the unemployment figures for this area are not as
bad as originally thought. His explanation was that nationally, all of the data is collected on the twelfth day of the
month and last month, all of the local manufacturing facilities had planned shut - downs. He said some facilities
shut down the same time every year, however, all of them hit that particular week. Mr. Shultz thought that once
this month's data is released, our area should be back down in the six percent range, which in today's economy is
not too bad.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Convnission's agenda
for this evening. No one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 901 -09 for AT &T and Wesley Helsley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 -foot
commercial telecommunications facility at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Rt.11). This property is identified
is with P.I.N.s 43 -A -130 and 43 -A -132 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval of Monopole Tower with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this conditional use
permit (CUP) application was tabled at the March 18, 2009, Planning Commission meeting for 28 days to give
the applicant the opportunity to revise the application with the suggestion of a monopole -type tower located closer
to the FEMA building where trees and buildings could visually shelter the tower and where it would not impact
the viewshed of historic battlefields. Mr. Cheran said that one of the issues discussed was the County's
requirement of a monopole tower versus a lattice -type tower. Mr. Cheran said the staff had responded that when
the telecommunications ordinance was adopted in the 1990s, it was concluded that the County preferred a
monopole tower in Urban Areas because it was believed a monopole would more easily blend into the viewshed.
Mr. Cheran added that a monopole tower is required by ordinance in the Urban Development Areas (UDA) and
on properties adjacent to historical sites. He said a lattice -type tower, therefore, would not be allowed as a use at
this site. Mr. Cheran continued, stating that the proposed tower location is within a DSA (Developmentally
Sensitive Area) and within the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan) of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He also
recalled from the March 18 meeting, the staff suggested that the nearby 150 -acre Rutherford Farm development,
zoned commercial and industrial, which is the site of the applicant's end user, FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Association), could provide a satisfactory location and coverage for the applicant and also provide
future co- location opportunities. Mr. Cheran read a list of five recommended conditions, should the Commission
find this use to be appropriate.
Commissioner Unger said he didn't disagree that the proposed location was not ideal; however,
• he didn't understand how the County decided that a monopole was visually preferable to a lattice -type tower.
Frederick County Pluming Commission Yage 24�0
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-3-
Cona nissioner Thomas recalled back when the decision was made; he said there was public
involvement and a decided preference for the monopole tower because a lattice tower can accommodate more
dishes and other equipment and they become obviously visible. He said a monopole has limitations on the
amount of dishes it can hold. Commissioner Thomas said, in addition, less area is required for a monopole versus
a lattice tower, he said a monopole visually blends better into the background.
Chairman Wilmot confined with the staff that the Planning Conunission would be voting to
recommend approval or denial of a CUP and, furthermore, there is not a waiver involved that will allow a lattice -
type tower.
Mr. Stephen L. Pettier, Jr., attorney with the law firm of Harrison & Johnston, was representing
AT &T Corporation. Mr. Pettler introduced Mr. Robert Ericksen, Real Estate Manager with AT &T; and Mr. Les
Polisky of ComSearch, consultant retained by AT &T. Mr. Pettler stated that Mr. Polisky was going to provide
the Conunission with information on why a lattice -type tower is requested here and why it is industry practice to
use them for this type of installation. Mr. Pettler also introduced Mr. John Callow of PHR &A, who prepared the
illustrations for the viewshed issue; Ms. Christie Lowery with Dewberry, who assembled the initial application;
and Mr. William Commerford and Mr. Mark Grace, who were both AT &T representatives.
Mr. Pettler wanted to first address the issue of whether or not there is a waiver to allow the
Commission to vote for a lattice -type structure to be constructed. Mr. Pettler said the zoning ordinance states that
the Planning Conunission may allow lattice -type construction for new telecorrrnmications towers which are
located 1) outside of the urban development area; and 2) in areas not adjacent to properties identified as historic
sites. Mr. Pettler said this property is technically not adjacent to designated historical sites. He said the issue
raised was the viewshed impact of a tower at this location; however, the future path of Route 37, a structure that
40 will be 35 feet in height, will be interposed between any viewpoint from the Milburn corridor.
Mr. Pettler responded neat to Commissioner Kriz's question about whether the HRAB issues
had been addressed. Mr. Pettler stated that AT &T sent a letter outlining what they did to try and locate the
facilities on top of the FEMA building on the Cowperwood property. Mr. Pettler said that the issues with placvng
the tower on the FEMA building involved reinforcement of the building and penetration of the roof, he said the
landlord, Cowpenvood, was not interested in altering their building. Mr. Pettler stated that after the HRAB
meeting, AT &T looked again at the Cowperwood property to see if the tower could be placed anywhere on the
site, however they couldn't achieve the comity's requirement for a clear fall zone on the property.
Mr. Pettler said the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically states this corridor is slated for
commercial and industrial development; lie said telecommunications facilities will be needed by the kind of
employers and businesses Frederick County will want to locate within the County and in this corridor. He said for
this particular proposal, the location of Route 37 will make this site the correct location for this tower because
Route 37 will act as a buffer between the tower and the core battlefields. Using a Powerpoint presentation, Mr.
Pettler showed a conceptual illustration depicting the future Route 37, the proposed tower, and the viewshed from
the Milburn corridor.
Mr. Les Polisky, a principal engineer with ComSearch, said he has worked in the
telecommunications field for about 45 years. Mr. Pettler proceeded to ask a number of questions of Mr. Polisky
in order to clarify for the Conunission why this site was chosen and why a lattice -type facility was needed. Mr.
Polisky stated that for antennas that are large in diameter, the open lattice -type structure is the normal installation
for microwave antennas because open lattice towers have a solid construction, eliminating any motion that may
throw off the narrow beam width of the antenna from its path line. Mr. Polisky said a monopole structure is good
• for a cellular tower or for antennas that have broad beam widths; however, for antennas with narrow beam widths,
which are those antennas six -feet or greater in diameter, any slight motion over a path length of nine to 1 I miles,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2454
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-4-
would cause the beam to go off center.
Commissioner Thomas asked if a dish or an antenna was planned to be placed on the tower. Mr.
Polisky and the other representatives answered there would be two dishes, one at eight -feet in diameter and one at
ten -foot in diameter.
Conunissioner Oates said a letter from AT &T, dated December 30, 2008, and a letter from
ComSearch, specifically stated the dishes would be five and six foot in diameter. Conunssioner Oates asked why
the diameter of the dishes increased in size.
Mr. Robert Erickson, Real Estate Manager with AT &T, said the information in the letters was
correct at the time that he wrote it; however, since that time, the engineers have refined their design.
Conunissioner Ruckman and Commissioner Thomas, who were both familiar with structural
design, stated that a monopole tower can be designed to be rigid enough to meet the desired needs. Conunissioner
Ruckman commented that the main reason for using a lattice tower is because it is more economical to build.
Conunissioner Oates conuuented that the applicant's illustrations show a 120 -foot pole with the
dishes attached about 30 -feet down from the top of the pole. He asked if the pole really needed to be 120 feet,
since the dishes aren't attached that far up on the pole. Mr. Erickson said the pole is designed with an extra 1
feet on top for flexibility, in case something occurs between their site and the customer's site on Mt. Weather that
would interfere with the line of site signal. He said the extra height would allow them to move the parabolic dish
further up the lower if needed. Conunissioner Oates said he would rather have the shorter pole constructed and
have the applicant come back before the Commission if they needed a taller pole. Mr. Erickson stated this was a
`'mission critical" service and if there is an interruption in the service for FEMA, a four -month CUP process to get
approval for increased elevation will not serve the customer.
• Conunissioner Thomas asked if the tower would have a ten -foot by ten -foot base and if it would
go straight up or be tapered. Mr. Erickson confirmed the ten -foot by ten -foot base and said there was some taper,
but not a lot.
Mr. Pettler returned to the podium for some final comments. Referring to staff s comment about
locating the tower somewhere in the Rutherford's Fanu development, Mr. Pettler said the Rutherford's Farm
property is not fully developed and there are significant issues in trying to locate a pole on a parcel of property
that doesn't have a site plan attached to it because it would be restricting the owner's ability in the future to put a
user on the property. He said the other issue raised was that FEMA should have known when they went into the
building that they were going to need these telecommunication facilities and should have made some
accommodations for that; he said FEMA does not own the building and will be leasing the building. Additionally
Mr. Pettler addressed the DSA concept in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; he believed the DSA was ambiguous in
definition and purpose, but there are references that provide some direction. He read Section 6, Page 113, in the
NELUP section of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, "... the DSA is a community and historical preservation area;
therefore, adjacent uses which may be incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening and it is
intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of
development along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate." Mr.
Pettler said that completely consistent with this direction is locating this facility where it would be clearly
screened from the battlefields area by the location of future Route 37. He said the uses for this piece of property
are limited; he said future Route 37 has been compared visually by some to a high- tension power line. In
conclusion, Mr. Pettler said his client's application is for a CUP for a lattice -type structure at the location
proposed, however, if the Planning Commission were to make a condition of this pen it that a monopole structure
must be constructed, his client has advised the) would be willing to accept that condition as part of their permit.
•
Frederick Count} Planning Commission Page 2455
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-5-
_ He pointed out that the lattice -type structure is the pragmatic, industry standard to secure this type of antenna; he
• said this structure fits within the Comprehensive Policy Plan, when viewed as a whole and long- range, and
aesthetically, is the right thing for this area. He referred to Section 165 -48.613 of the zoning ordinance, which
allows the Plamiing Commission to permit a lattice structure for a new tower at this location.
Comnnissioner Kriz conunented that no changes were made to this application since it was last
heard by the Planning Commission. He referred to the applicant's reference to "mission critical"
telecommunications services and asked the applicant why prior discussions with all involved parties were not
undertaken prior to FEMA's commitment to this location. Mr. Kriz said when this was presented to the HRAB, it
was stated by the applicant that the tower would be for FEMA only and possibly, emergency services; now the
applicant is stating there will be additional users on the tower. Commissioner Kriz said the HRAB had also
wanted the applicant to document the house, which was anticipated to be demolished.
Mr. Jett Dayo, representing AT &T, responded that AT &T is not contractually obligated to do
this tower with FEMA; However, FEMA needed some diversity other than Route 7 East. He said AT &T already
has some work with FEMA at Mt. Weather and when AT &T was looking into westerly access, this is where
AT &T's team came up with the concept of a diverse route from the Route 7 Corridor East.
Responding to Commissioner Kriz's continent, Mr. Robert Erickson recalled that he was
informed at the HRAB meeting about the County's preference for co- location in order to reduce the number of
towers constructed throughout the county. Mr. Erickson said the applicant considered this subsequent to the
HRAB meeting and they felt they could acquiesce if the tower was on AT &T's site, but not if it was on top of the
FEMA building. Mr. Pettler interjected that a letter, dated February 12, 2009, was submitted by Mr. Erickson to
the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission agreeing to cooperate fully with documenting the house on the
property.
Commissioner Kerr inquired about the potential capacity of the lattice -type tower compared to a
monopole tower. Mr. Pettler remarked that it is up to the Comity as far as allowing co- location for other service
providers or not. Regarding the capacity of the structure, Mr. Polisky said the flexibility on a lattice tower is
much greater for accommodating additional antennas. Cotnniissioner Kerr said it was safe to assume then, the
County could eliminate several monopole structures by allowing a lattice -type structure.
Commissioner Thomas said there have been a number of references to "mission critical" with
this tower, he said the need to have communications as mission critical does not necessarily rely on having this
communications tower at this particular location or so many feet from the FEMA building. Commissioner
Thomas said there are other ways to receive the communications such as installing fiber optic cable to a location
outside this area and making a line of sight microwave shot to Mt. Weather. Commissioner Thomas asked if
AT &T was going to say this is the only way and the only location they can provide "mission critical"
communication services for FEMA.
Chairman Wilmot nest called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and
Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Cheran returned to the podium to make some final comments. He said the Comity's
ordinance requires structures to allow co- location to other providers. Mr. Cheran talked about a number of
possible co- location opportunities for the applicant in other areas, in addition to the Rutherford site and some
unused property next to the FEMA site.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2456
Minutes of April 15, 2009
Commissioner Mohn said the staff's position is clear regarding a monopole versus a lattice -type
tower. He asked if the staff's position extended to the tower in its entirety; in other words, is this location
inappropriate for a tower, or is it simply an inappropriate place for a lattice -type tower. Mr. Cheran replied this is
an inappropriate location for a lattice -type tower. Conunissioner Mohn asked Mr. Cheran if the applicant would
agree to forego a lattice -type tower and agree to a condition to construct only a monopole -type tower, would it
change the staff's position regarding allowing a tower at this location. Mr. Cheran replied that a monopole would
work.
Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Cheran if the ordinance requires all towers to be available for co-
location and Mr. Cheran replied yes. Commissioner Kriz asked if a statement would need to be supplied by the
Commission in order to restrict users only to the applicant, Frederick County Emergency Services and FEMA.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence remarked that the ordinance doesn't state there must be co- location;
however, it has been the County's policy, and each time a tower CUP is issued, there is a condition that states the
tower must be available for co- location. Commissioner Kriz said this is policy, not ordinance, so this tower could
be restricted only to FEMA use. Mr. Lawrence stated, ultimately, if there is support for a tower and the
Commission wishes to eliminate the condition requiring the tower to be available for co- location, then that would
need to be a part of the Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Unger was dismayed about some of the changes presented by the applicant this
evening; for example, the increased size of the dishes and the willingness to use a monopole tower.
Commissioner Unger thought a monopole would look unsightly and he compared it visually to a 120 -foot silo.
Commissioner Unger questioned whether or not the applicant had investigated properties in the Rutherford Farm
development or some of the wetland areas. He didn't think this was the best location for any type of tower.
Chairman Wilmot conunented that if the owners of the Rutherford's Farm development had not
• been approached about the potential of acconuuodating this tower on their site, it would seem it would be
reducing the opportunity to support further business that needs this type of infrastructure.
Commissioner Thomas said he was viewing this as a potential precedent - setting action and if the
Commission ignores its ordinance requiring monopole towers in certain areas, then the Commission needs to
revise the ordinance.
Commissioner Kerr also hoped the applicant had investigated any possibilities for a location
within the Rutherford Farm development. He thought the lattice tower was visually better than a monopole.
Convnissioner Kerr said that with a lattice -t tower, there is the potential to elimmate a number of future towers
because of the ability for co- location. He said he would much rather see 20 dishes on this one tower than 15
monopoles impacting the landscape.
Conuuissioner Molm shared Commissioner Kerr's perspective on not being too concerned about
whether a lattice or monopole is visually better than the other. He said he was more concerned about whether a
tower was appropriate at this location. He said he was sensitive to the viewshed concerns, but felt this site was
not necessarily inappropriate for tower. Conunissioner Mohn said he also agreed with Convnissioner Thomas
about being sensitive to the ordinance and signaling the Conunission's intent. He said frankly, if the applicant is
willing to allow a condition that this will be a monopole -type structure, he would probably not object to the
application.
Commissioner Oates commented that AT &T is just one particularprovider with a site across the
road from FEMA; he said there are other providers that could supply FEMA with service. He noted there is
® available land in Rutherford's Farm. He said this area is within a DSA and buildings in this commercially -zoned
area are limited to 35 feet in height under the B2 ordinance, not 120 feet, and this tower will stand out.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2457
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-7—
Commissioner Oates did not believe this was an appropriate location for a tower.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to deny the CUP. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ruckmvr, but failed by the following tic vote:
YES (TO DENY) Unger, Watt, Ruckman, Oates, Thomas, Kriz
NO: Ambrogi, Madagan, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot
(Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.)
A new motion was made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Triplett to
approve CUP 901 -09 with the five conditions recommended by the staff and two additional conditions, 96,
requiring the construction of a monopole -type tower and 47, the maximum diameter of any dish attached to the
tower will not exceed ten feet. Any larger size dish would require the applicant to apply for a new conditional use
pernrit. This motion was passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commmission does hereby recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit 901 -09 for AT &T and Wesley Helsley, submitted by Dewberry, for a 120 -foot
commercial telecommunications facility at 2042 Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for co- locating personal wireless service providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment of
operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this
conditional use permit, the permit will be deemed invalid.
6. Only a monopole -type tower is to be constructed on this site; no lattice -type tower is permitted.
7. The maximum diameter of any dish attached to the tower will not exceed ten feet. Any larger sire dish
world require the applicant to apply for a new conditional use pennil.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (APPROVE) Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Ambrogi
NO: Kriz, Oates, Ruckman, Watt, Unger
(Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 24M
Minutes of April 15 2009
Rezoning 902 -09 of The Bishop -Amari Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 2.77
• acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District,with proffers, for commercial use.
The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Rt.11) and Old
Charles Town Road (Rt. 761). This property is further identified with P.I.N. 44 -A -43 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 30 Days
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that the land uses proposed in this rezoning
are generally consistent with the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan) and the commercial designation for this
intersection. He said the application provides a level of sensitivity to the identified DSAs (Developmentally
Sensitive Areas), addresses the appearance of the Route I 1 corridor, and provides transportation improvements
adjacent to this site as generally identified for this corridor. Mr. Ruddy said the Commission should ensure that a
satisfactory level of expectation is met regarding: 1) site design consideration along the property's frontages,
including corridor appearance, access to the site, and median improvements; and, 2) appropriate value in the
transportation contributions which are aimed at addressing the transportation impacts of this project and the
necessary off -site transportation improvements.
Mr. Ruddy noted that the NELUP recognizes Route I 1 as a four -lane urban divided road
improvement project and it recognizes Old Charles Towm Road as an urban two -lane road section. The NELUP
discourages individual access points along Martinsburg Pike (Route H). He said the applicant has proposed two
entrances on Route 1 1 North, both are right -in, right -out controlled. The full commercial entrance would be
located on Old Charles Town Road. He said pedestrian accommodations have been provided along Route 11 and
across Old Charles Town Road. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has proffered to limit the development of the site
to a maximum of 20,000 square feet of structural commercial development, which may include up to 5,000 square
feet of restaurant use. In addition, a maximum of 16 gasoline pumps may be developed on the property. Mr.
Ruddy said that a variety of improvements have been proffered to the property's road frontages and to the
signalization of the intersection of Old Charles Town Road and Martinsburg Pike, including right -of -way
dedication.
In addition, Mr. Ruddy said that just north of this project is the intersection of Route I 1 and
Hopewell Road; he noted that everyone is aware of the LOS (level of service) and configuration issues which
exist at this location. He pointed out that previous applications have addressed this issue by contributing a certain
monetary amount to assist in the improvement of that intersection. He said this application has also made a
similar effort; however, in the amount of $5,000, which is very clearly less than the amount provided by some of
the other recent projects. In a related transportation component, Mr. Ruddy spoke about the potential for the
applicant to provide additional median improvements within the right -of -ways. He said the ability has been
provided for that to occur in this location, should it be needed in the future; further consideration of those median
improvements should occur at this time with the initial phase of this development in order to achieve the ultimate
design of Route 11. He said the applicant has provided a raised median in a certain location to separate the right -
turn movement, and more of that would be appropriate. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has also made some
commitments to the building placement, a positive orientation with parking and travehvays, building design,
construction materials, landscaping, and a plaza area with kiosk.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Grcenway Engineering, was representing the Bishop -Amari rezoning.
Mr. Wyatt discussed some of the challenges they encountered with the site, such as obtaining adequate water and
sewer service to the property and the transportation issues. He said they worked with property owners across the
street and the Easy Living Associates group to obtain adequate water and sewer service. Since they didn't have a
• known user, VDOT required them to do the "worst - case" scenario when they scoped the traffic study, which is
about 10,000 tad for the site. He said the traffic study shows a significant amount of traffic for a fairly small site.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2459
Minutes of April 15, 2009
Mr. Wyatt said the worse -case scenario would include eight pump stations with 16 fueling stations. Mr. Wyatt
described the transportation improvements that were planned; he said the transportation improvements are all
proffered elements and would occur in conjunction with the first site plan on this property. He said since Route
11 is planned to be an urban, four -lane divided highway, the applicant determined centerline, allowing for half of
the ultimate section, which would consist of a 16 -foot median, two travel lanes going northbound, a continuous
right -turn lane, and a five -foot sidewalk. He said essentially, the applicant is putting in a fairly significant amount
of pavement from the existing edge of pavement to allow for two separate travel lanes going north up Route 11,
as well as a continuous right -turn lane into their right -in entrance. He said this pavement, with striping, will be in
place when they develop the site and then, when Route 11 is improved in the future as it continues north, the
applicant's pavement section is already in place. Mr. Wyatt said the access is a "right -in, right -out only" design
with a significant median separator; however, if they found out after it was installed that people were still able to
make left turn movements in, the applicant proffered they would come back, if instructed by the County or
VDOT, and create a barricade for any left -turn movement.
Mr. Wyatt next addressed Old Charles Town Road. He said the traffic study shows the existing
southbound single lane improved to a dual left -turn lane to get traffic onto Route 11. Mr. Wyatt said the
applicant will put in the pavement section necessary for this future dual left -turn lane, so if Route 11 is unproved
and there is a second southbound lane, the pavement is already in place in front of the applicant's site. It was
noted that the applicant had proffered to put in the ultimate pavement section on both Route 761 and Route 11,
along the entire property frontage to accommodate the future needs of those two roads.
Additionally, in the interest of not having multiple entrances on Old Charles Town Road, Mr.
Wyatt said the applicant has proffered to provide and build an inter - parcel access drive, which would allow for
future connections. He said the 25 -foot setback is for the required zoning district buffer between the two
properties, since the property is being rezoned to B2; and, he noted the road placement was not against the line.
•
Mr. Wyatt stated there is the potential to work out a shared entrance alignment with the adjoining property; and,
the applicant has the ability to shift the alignment, if necessary. He said all the adjoining properties to the north
and to the east will have the ability to access the road.
Mr. Wyatt nest talked about his research for calculating the monetary contribution for the
Hopewell Road improvements. He said there was a wide range in the dollar amount contributed by the various
adjoining properties. Mr. Wyatt said the rezoning he was involved with, Easy Living, contributed $50,000 for
their 20 -acre site and he thought that seemed reasonable. Comparing the properties on an acreage basis, Mr.
Wyatt said he calculated $5,000.00 for the 2'L -acre Amari- Bishop property. Mr. Wyatt said he realized it was
not a substantial sum, but the applicant is installing a considerable amount of road improvements to meet the
future needs of the transportation system.
The final item Mr. Wyatt addressed was design. He said in order to protect the DSA to the
south, the applicant included building orientation in the proffers. Mr. Wyatt said the buildings will be primarily
brick and gable- shingle roofing; but more importantly, the applicant has proffered for the roof lines to hide
mechanical equipment to protect the viewshed from the battlefields areas. He described the plaza area with an
informational kiosk, the building height limitations, and constriction materials. Also included are low -light
fixtures for building lighting, gasoline fueling isles to be concealed by buildings in front, signage limitations
which are more restrictive than the recently - adopted County ordinance, and buffering and screening of parking
areas.
MT. Wyatt concluded that these proffers attempt to address the transportation impacts and also
add design elements that protect the DSA to the South. He said the staff was seeking additional specificity on
screening materials and additional language will be added regarding the number and size of plantings.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2460
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-10-
• Conuuissioner Oates asked Mr. Wyatt if there was any discussion about ajoint entrance and a
shared easement with the Cutshaw property, so a buffer wouldn't be required. Commissioner Oates commented
that it would gain the applicant about 25 feet or more by placing half the road on the Cutshaw's property.
Commissioner Oates said the applicant had mentioned that Parcels 47 and 42 would have an inter- parcel
connection through the access road out to Old Charles Town Road, he asked if something would be set up inside
the site that would prevent vehicles from exiting the right -turn in, right -turn out or, if traffic will be able to go out
that way also. Mr. Wyatt said if vehicles entered into it, they obviously would have the ability to drive through
and take the right out onto Route 11. Mr. Wyatt said the proffer didn't specify there would be reciprocal ingress/
egress easements, but if that was something the Commission was interested in, the applicant could include it.
Commissioner Oates said he was concerned about the amount of additional traffic that could start to use that
limited entrance on Route 11. Commissioner Oates also commented about the applicant's method for arriving at
the monetary contribution by comparing acreage; he said the land doesn't have the impact on the road, but the
traffic does. Conuuissioner Oates believed it would be more accurate to compare the site's traffic generation, not
the size of the parcel. Mr. Wyatt said he thought everyone recognized the need to help with the Hopewell Road
improvements, but he did not want to lose site of the fact that with this project in particular, the iimnediate road
improvements around the site were important, so as the corridor grows in both directions, the pavement is already
in place and no one has to be conning back in after the project is developed, at least along the frontage.
Conuuissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the number of gasoline fueling points proffered
by the applicant. Mr. Wyatt said the proffer limits this property to 20,000 square feet of structural commercial,
of which 5,000 square feet is limited to restaurants, and 16 fuel pumps, which is consistent with the traffic study.
Mr. Wyatt said he could rewrite the proffer to state, "eight fueling stations, for a total of 16 pumps," for more
specificity.
• Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Ruckman expressed sonic concern over the monetary transportation proffer and
he thought it was a little on the light side for the amount of traffic this site will generate.
Conuuissioner Ruckman made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Oates. Other Commnission members asked if the applicant was going to be given die
opportunity to increase the monetary proffer by a tabling of the application. Commissioner Molm conunented
that this seemed to be negotiating a proffer value.
Mr. Wvatt said the reason he didn't offer to be tabled was because he wasn't asked the question.
He said if the only element left to determine was a fair share for Hopewell Road, obviously, he would request a
tabling. Mr. Wyatt said Ire thought the issue could be resolved quickly and that lie could be back in front of the
Commission within 30 days.
Commissioner Thomas asked how the Commission will come up with a comparable, appropriate
method to calculate how much transportation impact needs to be mitigated. Mr. Bishop said it is not the staff's
position to provide a figure, but the staff is fully available to work with the applicant and review any methodology
they present.
Commissioner Ruckman rescinded his previous motion for denial and Commissioner Oates
rescinded his second to the motion.
Conuuissioner Ruckman next made a motion to table this rezoning for 30 days, atthe applicant's
• request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Conunissien Page 2461
Minutes of April 15, 2009
-11-
® BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table for 30 days
Rezoning 402 -09 of The Bishop -Amari Property, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 2.77 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use, in order to
provide time for the applicant to revise his proffer on the amount of monetary contribution towards the Hopewell
Road improvements.
(Note: Coimnissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.'
No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and
seconded by Commissioner Oates, the meeting adjoumed at 9:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
M /Wilmot, Chairman
C �
J
•
Eric YJ Lamvrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 15, 2009
Page 2462