Loading...
PC_07-15-09_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 July 15, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chainman/Mennber at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District, Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District, Richard Ruck Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District. Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Moln, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District, Kevin O. Crosen, 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; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta. Clerk. is CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order it 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Connnussioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the July 15. 2009 agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the May 20, 2009 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports. is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2495 Minutes of July 15, 2009 -2- • 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 904 -09 of the Federal Aviation Administration for an 80 -foot steel monopole telecommunications tower. This property is located at 170 Marcel Drive, off of Route 522 and Tasker Road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 76 -A -53B in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the proposed telecommunications facility is located on property within the Eastgate Commerce Center. He said the Eastgate Commerce Center is within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as indicated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Cheran said the adjacent properties are zoned M 1 (Industrial Limited) and RA (Rural Areas). He noted there were no properties of significant historical value or any historical sites adjacent to the proposed use. He also noted the proposed use is more than 100 feet from any residential structure and the rear of the property is wooded. Mr. Cheran read a list of recommended • conditions, should the Conunission find the use to be appropriate. Mr. Robert Corcoran, representative for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), was available to answer questions from the Commission. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments: however, no one came forward to speak. Chairman Wilmot asked the applicant if he agrees to collocation of other wireless service providers. Mr. Corcoran said they were agreeable to collocation; however, there were some limitations. He remarked that the property in question is currently in use by a governmental agency; therefore, they can provide space on the tower, but cannot guarantee the commercial providers could have access to the property. Mr. Corcoran said the FAA has other towers they operate in Maryland and Virginia and they make those available for State and Local Public Use, but not commercial. Commissioner Thomas agreed that a commercial organization cannot have access to a government property without written approvals, which is rarely given. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, commented that the property is privately owned, but it is leased. Mr. Lawrence said respecting what the applicant's needs are, they may not be able to allow collocation today, but if there is ever a change in the use of the property and who the tenant is, there may be opportunities in the future. Mr. Lawrence cautioned about restricting the use too much. He said if the government doesn't want to lease it out, that's okay; however, in the future, if it is privately owned and leased, it would provide greater flexibility for other users. is Frederick County Planning Comnission Page 2496 Minutes of July 15, 2009 -3- There was some lengthy discussion among the Comunission members on various issues concerning who would own the tower after the federal govenunent is no longer the holder of the lease; if the tower would have to be removed or if it could be used by the property owner for commercial use; and if the property owner would have to apply for a new conditional use permit, if lie chose to lease the tower commercially. Mr. Corcoran pointed out that their lease states the FAA must remove their tower and restore the grounds, if they no longer want to lease the property. Commission members discussed amcnding Conditions 92 and #4 to more appropriately acconiniodate the proposed use. It was suggested that Condition 42 be amended to state that the tower would be available for collocating public use wireless services providers; and, Condition 44 be amended to state that if the FAA relinquishes their lease of the property, the FAA will remove the tower. Upon motion made by Commissioner Anibrogi and seconded by Commissioner Mobil, BE iT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 904 -09 of the Federal Aviation Administration for an 80 -foot steel monopole telecommunications tower at 170 Marcel Drive with the following conditions: 1. All review agency continents and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating public use wireless service providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. • 4. If the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) relinquishes their lease of the property, the tower will be removed by the FAA. 5. If a teleconmiunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this CUP (conditional use pennit), the CUP will be deenied to be invalid. 6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new CUP. (Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations. The proposed ordinance amendment provides revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include outdoor lighting standards. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that over the past year or so, the staff has been developing new outdoor lighting standards for Frederick County. Ms. Perkins said the need for these standards • has become evident due to lighting concerns and issues experienced with various new developments. She noted that the amendment has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on multiple Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2497 Minutes of July 15, 2009 occasions and the proposed amendment has been advertised as a public hearing this evening Ms. Perkins next provided a brief overview of the text. She said the draft standards include elements that apply to non - residential and certain residential uses, and it includes maximum heights for lighting fixtures, ceiling requirements, photometric plan requirements with site plans, and intensity maximums for lighting for commercial and multi- family uses, as well as requirements for recreational facilities. She said there are also new definitions which correspond to the lighting standards. She noted that the standards will not require sites to install lighting, however, it will place thresholds on the maximum amount of lighting that is permitted to be on the site, as well as regulate the types of fixtures and the mounting heights of those fixtures. Ms. Perkins stated that enforcement of the ordinance will be by the Planning Department. Commissioner Molm asked if the review of the photometric plans would be solely a Planning Staff function or if it would be shared with the Engineering Department. Ms. Perkins replied it would be a Planning Staff function as part of the site plan process. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the enforcement would not be stretching the expertise of the Planning Department. Ms. Perkins replied that photometric plans will display the candle minimums and blanket intensities and the staff will be able to see what will happen at the site plan stage. She said the staff would then visit the site with a photometric light meter. Chainmut Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one was present to speak. The Planning Commission was in favor of the ordinance as written. However, it was mentioned that enforcement might be better suited for the Inspections Department, rather than the Planning Department. • Planning Director. Eric R. Lawrence, stated the staff is already at these sites doing lighting inspections, working under the "glare' section of the code. Mr. Lawrence said the staff believes this proposed ordinance and inspection will make it easier for the Planning Staff to do theirjobs. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner 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 by including outdoor lighting standards. (Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Subsection 36, Landscaping Requirements. The proposed ordinance amendment provides revisions to the zoning ordinance to remove landscaping requirements as they pertain to the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Action - Recommended Approval Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the Plamring Staff was directed to prepare this • zoning ordinance test amendment to remove the landscaping requirements from Chapter 165, Zoning, Subsection 36 Landscaping Requirements, as it pertains to the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2498 Minutes of July 15, 2009 -5- existing ordinance states that residential developments requiring a preliminary sketch plan, which are the traditional five -acre lots, as well as the two -acre rural preservation lots, must provide one of three types of landscaping, either street trees, ornamental landscaping, or tree preservation, which requires the creation of open space. She said this ordinance amendment proposes to remove those three requirements from the RA District. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one was present to speak. The Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed amendment as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas 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, Subsection 36. Landscaping Requirements, by removing the landscaping requirements as they pertain to the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. (Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.) An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article iV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Subsection 37, Buffer and Screening Requirements. This ordinance amendment provides revisions to the zoning ordinance to modify the landscape elements, required buffers, buffer modifications • and waivers, and includes OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District additions. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the specific revisions involve: Section 165 - 37B, Screening, Landscape Screening -- currently this section requires developments to provide three trees per ten linear feet, specifically, two evergreens and one deciduous; the proposed change is for one evergreen, one deciduous, and one shrub to ensure the health of the plants due to the intensity of the buffer requirement. Section 165 -37D, Zoning District Buffers in 132 /133- -this is a revision to remove the zoning district buffer requirement between the B2 (Business General) and the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning Districts due to the similarity between the districts. Section 165 -37D, Zoning District Buffers, Waivers, will allow the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator to waive the requirements for zoning district buffers on site plans when die use on die site is allowed in the adjacent zoning district; currently this is a Planning Commission waiver. Section 165 -37D, Zoning District Buffers, Waivers, will allow the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, rather than the Planting Commission, to provide a waiver due to topography issues. Section 165 -37 will include reference notes to the OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District that were left out during the creation of the district. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one was present to speak. The Planning Commission was in favor of the proposed amendment as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, 0 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2499 Minutes of July 15, 2009 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, Subsection 37, Buffer and Screening Requirements, by modifying the landscape elements, required buffers, and buffer modifications and waivers, and to provide OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District additions. (Note: Conmmissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.) An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Subsection 82E. This ordinance amendment provides revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to add Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 208, Beverages, to the permitted uses in the Ml (Light Industrial) District. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Plainer Candice E. Perkins reported that this proposed amendment was initiated by a formal request to add SIC 208, Beverages, into the M I (Industrial Limited) permitted uses. Ms. Perkins stated that SIC 208. Beverages, as a whole, is penuitted in the M2 (Industrial General) District, and includes the following uses: Malt Beverages (SIC 2082); Malt (SIC 2083); Wines, Brandy, and Brandy Spirits (SIC 2084); Distilled and Blended Liquors (SIC 2085); Bottled and Caromed Soft Drinks and Carbonated Waters (SIC 2086) - currently penuitted in M I. and Flavoring Extracts and Flavoring Syrups (SiC 2087) - currently permitted in M1. • Ms. Perkins recalled the Planning Commission's discussion of dais proposed amendment at their meeting of June 17, 2009. She said comments forwarded to the Board of Supervisors maintained that SIC 208 as a whole may not be appropriate; therefore. SIC 2082 and SIC 2083 were removed. During the Board of Supervisors' discussion on June 24, 2009, the Board requested additional information regarding the need to exclude the two uses. Ms. Perkins said the Board of Supervisors forwarded SiC 208 in its entirety to public hearing. Ms. Perkins referred to a handout to the Commission, which was a copy of an email from the EDC (Economic Development Commission) regarding their research into the use. She said the EDC reported they did not have any concerns about the malt or the malt beverage production. Chairman Wilmot commented that the specific formal request referred to by the staff was solely to add SIC 2084, Wines, Brandy, and Brandy Spirits, and SiC 2085, Distilled and Blended Liquors, into the MI District. Chairman Wilmot noted that SIC 208, Beverages, was originally placed as a permitted use only in the M2 District for a reason. She explained that her issue was that the M i Zone is not one where there can be a co- existence of heavier industrial uses, particularly because of the office buildings. She said if these heavier industrial -type businesses are going to be allowed in the M I District, it will probably eliminate the establishment of office parks in the M I Districts. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the concern also included businesses such as micro - breweries, which is not an intensive use, and would fit within the M I District. He commented about the SIC classification system and its inability to distinguish between micro and full - scales uses. He said the limiting factors for large - scale uses would be the availability of utilities and water. Chairman Wilmot agreed with Commissioner Thomas's comments and she noted the • committee's work on switching over from the SIC Codes to the NAiCS. She said the delineation between micro and full -scale uses could probably be made using the NAICS. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2500 Minutes of July 15, 2009 -7- • Commissioner Mohn said he understood the concerns raised because of the variety of uses permitted in the M 1 Zoning District. However, Commissioner Mohn said he would not want to short- change opportunities for industrial uses in the M 1 District for the sake of promoting office development when perhaps the office development should occur through some other zoning category. Commissioner Mohn said he was comfortable allowing SIC 208 in its entirety within the M 1 District. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one was present to speak. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and passed by a majority vote, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment to add Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 208, Beverages, in its entirety to the permitted uses in the M I (Light Industrial) Zoning District. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Subsection 82E, by adding Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 208, Beverages, to the permitted uses in the MI (Light Industrial) District. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Mohn, Kerr, Triplett, Kriz, Madagan, Thomas, Oates, Ruck Crosen, Ambrogi, Unger NO: Wilmot (Note: Commissioner Manuel was absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT No Action Required Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that Article XV of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Districts, is the portion of the ordinance that lays out the various floodplain districts and the uses and disturbance permitted within the various districts. Ms. Perkins stated that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has developed a new flood insurance rate map for Frederick County and the County is required to adopt a floodplain ordinance that is compliant with State and Federal requirements. She said the Planning Staff has been working with the Virginia DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation) to revise the County's current ordinance so that it would be compliant. Ms. Perkins said the revisions before the Commission this evening are based on a Virginia DCR model floodplain ordinance that has been approved by FEMA. She noted that the revisions are necessary to be in conformance with the 2009 Flood Insurance Study and the new rate maps for the County as prepared by HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development), Federal Insurance Administration, dated September 2, 2009. u Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2501 Minutes of.luly 15.2009 Ms. Perkins proceeded to provide some background on the need for this update. She said as a • participating conmhunity in the National Flood Insurance Program, Frederick County is responsible for malting sure that the floodplain management regulations meet or exceed the nummun requirements of the flood insurance program in Virginia. She noted that Frederick County's floodplain ordinance does not meet the minimum requirements and, therefore, FEMA would not be able to offer flood insurance in Frederick County. Ms. Perkins explained there are numerous proposed revisions to the floodplain districts including: an abundance of new sections were added; numerous sections were renamed; new titles were provided for the study and maps, a new date was provided for the map adoption, the Flood - Fringe District was renamed the Special Floodplain District; revisions were made to the Floodway District Development Prohibitions Section; and new and revised definitions were provided. Ms. Perkins commented that the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) endorsed the changes at their meeting on June 25, 2009, and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Ruckman referred to the first page of the draft changes to the Floodplain District under the section entitled, Purpose, where the first line states, "The purpose of these provisions is to prevent the loss of life and property..." Mr. Ruckman suggested that the word, prevent, should probably be replaced or omitted because the ordinance can only minimize or reduce the possibility of the loss of life or property, but it cannot prevent the loss of life or propertv. No other issues or concerns were raised by the Planning Commission at this time. • UPDATE OF THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) STANDARDS No Action Required Deputy Director — Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported that the Transportation Committee has spent significant time in cooperation with representatives from the Top of Virginia Builders Association to develop the current draft of the Traffic Impact Analvsis (TIA) Standards. Mr. Bishop stated that on June 22, 2009, the Transportation Committee voted to forward this draft to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. He said the official recommendation is to adopt the policy and direct the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) to modify the ordinance as necessary in order to implement the new TIA Policy. Conunissioner Thomas referred to the section entitled, Process and Report Requirements Article 4. Each TIA nmst include the following: d) Accident Data for the most recent three -year period to include accident type and severity, if readily available from the State Police. Commissioner Thomas suggested that the words, ifreodily available. be removed and have the accident data included. He said if there is a personal injury accident or property damage over a certain dollar amount threshold, the police will have the information. Conunissioner Kriz commented that these standards had considerable deliberations by both the Transportation Committee and the Top of Virginia Builders Association and an agreement was finally reached where everyone is now satisfied. He said there was a considerable amount of give and take with these standards. Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Bishop who adopts these standards, the Transportation Committee • or the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bishop replied that the Transportation Committee has recommended the adoption of the standards to the Board of Supervisors. He said part of that recommendation is to adopt die policy Frederick Counp Planning Conuuission Page 2502 Minutes of July 15, 2009 and to task the DRRC with making the necessan code modifications so that the site plan and master plan check list reference the policy. No other issues or areas of concern were raised by the Conunission. Members of the Commission voiced their support and noted that these standards have been needed for quite a while. .� 1[�7 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL Plamaing Director, Eric R. Lawrence, presented the Conunission with a copy of the current DIM (Development Impact Model) for 2009. Mr. La \aTCnce stated that this is the expectation printout from the DIM and the Board of Supervisors adopted this on June 24, 2009. Mr. Lawrence said this information is used to evaluate the impacts a residential project will have on the County. Commissioner Thomas commented that the projected capital facility impacts seemed to have gone down from last year. Mr. Lawrence replied that the total impact for Single Family Dwelling Unit and the Town Home Dwelling Unit went down by a couple thousand dollars each and the Apartment Dwelling Unit went up. Mr. Lawrence said that generally speaking, the numbers are within the same ballpark. • ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. by a unanimous vote. submitted, Chairman r Eric R. LItr Secretary • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2503 Minutes of July 15, 2009