Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_09-16-09_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 September 16, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; and Gary R Oates, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the September 16, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the August 5, 2009 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 9/15/09 Mtg. Commissioner Manuel reported that the HRAB discussed two items: 1) Revisions to the • Historic Overlay District to clarify and modify design components, such as building additions, parking lot designs Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2529 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -2- and surfacing, and signage; 2) Revisions to the proffers to Jordan Springs; the applicant requested a tabling in order to meet with staff. Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) — 9/14/09 Mtg. Commissioner Mohn reported that CPPC discussed CPPA #03 -09 for Rock Harbor Golf Course; the committee reached-the decision to recommend that the CPPA move forward to the Planning Commission for discussion with a recommendation for the expansion of the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area), and the proposed text for the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment, as well as a recommendation to create a new zoning district to implement the plan. He said these recommendations were based on input from the Commissioner of the Revenue, the applicant, and several committee members. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER MADAGAN AS LIAISON TO EDC Chairman Wilmot appointed Commissioner Madagan as the Planning Commission's liaison to the EDC (Economic Development Commission). 40 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 Rezoning Application #05 -09 of DMJ Holdings, LLC, submitted by Painter- Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.85 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The properties are located at the northwest corner of Route 50 East and Custer Avenue (Rt. 781). These properties are further identified by P.LN.s 64A- 4 -16A, 64A -4 -16, 64A -4 -17, 64A -4 -18, 64A -4 -19, and 64A -4 -20 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that in general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan and the Route 50 Business Corridor Plan. Mr. Ruddy pointed out, however, elements of the rezoning application that did not fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, particularly the transportation impacts as the pertain to Route 50 • and its intersection with Custer Avenue (Rt. 781), the need for additional corridor enhancement elements, such as landscaping, and flexibility in the proffer statement with regards to the final entrance locations and bicycle and Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2530 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -3- pedestrian accommodations. Mr. Ruddy said that although the applicant's proffer proposes to limit any future uses to those that will not generate in excess of 200 vehicle trips per hour, the applicant has not proffered any / limitation on the scope or square footage of the development of the site. He next read a list of the land uses proffered out by the applicant; those uses included car washes, fast food restaurants with drive- through service windows, automotive dealers with outdoor display areas, gasoline service stations, model home sales offices, amusement and recreational services operated outdoors, self -service storage facilities, and adult retail. Mr. Ruddy said the building height has been limited to 35 feet and will ensure that building height does not extend above the height limitations of the district, including any exceptions to the limitations. He noted that a parcel lighting proffer was also included. In addition, he said the applicant has proffered to identify and preserve existing vegetation within the 25 foot inactive buffer which can be preserved and incorporated into the screening requirements currently in place. Mr. John Lewis, with Painter- Lewis, PLC, was representing this application. Mr. Lewis said they have spent a considerable amount of time with VDOT, the Ravenwing and Pembridge Heights homeowners associations, and the Planning Department in identifying the impacts and he believed they had done a good job addressing those impacts through the proffers. Mr. Lewis addressed the staffs comment about the applicant's transportation proffer being perhaps less in value than some of the other recent rezoning applications. He said this property does not have good frontage or access and it will be difficult and costly to develop. Mr. Lewis said this site would probably not have a high - intensity use because of problems associated with access. He believed the $5,000 commitment was adequate. In addition, he said there will be about $200,000 worth of road improvements needed to get access to this site. Mr. Lewis believed the GDP (Generalized Development Plan), which identifies the general configuration of the proposed parcel after consolidation, the location and form of the site access, the approximate location of inter -parcel access easements, and the construction improvements to Custer Avenue (Rt. 78 1) and Millwood Pike (Rt. 50), works conceptually. Mr. Lewis noted the design will have to be engineered and needs to go through the site plan stage so it can be evaluated by both VDOT and the County to make sure everything is done correctly. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification regarding the proffers on Page 3, A through C; specifically, the improvements to Route 50 and Route 781, the impact to the intersection at Custer Avenue (Rt. 781), access in and out of the site, and access to the existing commercial site. He asked how those improvements will flow together with the proffer. Mr. Lewis replied that the proposed improvements are conceptual and will need to be designed and engineered during the site plan stage of development. Mr. Lewis stated that on the Custer Avenue side, the homeowners associations' primary issue was southbound traffic on Custer moving into the intersection at Route 50. He said there is a single lane going southbound, so all of the turning movements have to be made from one lane and often times, cars stack up beyond Pembridge Avenue and into Ravenwing. Mr. Lewis said they are proposing a dedicated right -turn lane, in addition to the through and left -turn lane. He said they are also proposing a right -in only to access the site to capture traffic that would be coming from the residential areas going southbound; he said access will be available to the commercial area. Mr. Lewis said that in order to make this work, the applicant will be constructing a raised median. He said that while these improvements are being made, they will provide the pedestrian amenity along the full frontage of the applicant's property, in addition to along the frontage of the adjacent property which is not under the applicant's control. He said although the staff would like to see the sidewalk extended beyond this point, the applicant is not proffering to do so. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2531 Minutes of September 16, 2009 Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this time and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Thomas (Tommy) Bryant, resident at 126 Etnam Street, said that he and his neighbors wanted to see a height restriction placed on the property because they were concerned about having a hotel overlooking their properties. He said he would prefer a much lower height restriction than the 35 -foot mentioned, so they could continue to enjoy their backyards. Secondly, they did not want a 24 -hour business or convenience store that would disrupt their neighborhood. Finally, he raised the issue of the "U -turn" to go back west on Route 50 at Purdue Drive and the blind spot created by vehicles turning into the Blue Fox. Mr. Bryant questioned how the traffic would be managed and if there would be a traffic signal; he said if traffic flow is increased, it will be difficult to make a "U" turn. Ms. Jan Carter, a resident Lot 15, along Route 50, said her property adjoined the parcel being considered for rezoning. Ms. Carter talked about the high volume of traffic that has always been on Route 50 and the lack of any traffic management over the years. She said vehicles frequently stack up at the traffic signal across from the Nissan Dealership and sometimes vehicles sit through three cycles of lights. She commented that the increased traffic volume coming out at Pembrooke was "cut- through" traffic from Senseny Road. She questioned the practicality of placing bicycle and pedestrian trails because of the steep slopes. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The Deputy Director- Transportation, John A. Bishop, was asked by Commission members to comment on the transportation aspect of the project. Mr. Bishop said he has worked out the majority of the issues • with the applicant. Mr. Bishop wanted to make sure, however, the County had an adequate amount of influence at the site planning stage so the entrances are constructed properly. Commissioner Ruckman asked if there were any future plans to vacate the right -of -way where Custer Avenue used to extend up diagonally; he commented that nothing could probably be done with that piece of land. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's resident engineer, replied that VDOT has had previous requests, but has decided they do not want to sell that property. He said if Route 50 becomes a six -lane road sometime in the future, VDOT believed it may be wise to just keep it at this time. - Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Bishop how he felt about extending Pembridge Avenue eastbound to merge out onto Route 50. Mr. Bishop said the staff also raised this issue with Mr. Lewis; he said there is probably a way to make it work, but the staff felt that as they were attempting to talk through it with the rezoning and making the traffic work, staff was getting to the point where they were having to fully redesign the entrance without being at the site plan stage itself Commissioner Unger said he thought this property should be rezoned; however, his biggest concern was that the monetary proffer was not nearly comparable to anything the County has done in the past and secondly, he did not like the entrance design. Commissioner Manuel said he supported the approval of the rezoning; he said it conformed to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan. Commissioner Manuel believed the applicant had done as good a job as possible on a very challenging site. He said in working with the neighborhood, the applicant has proffered out intense commercial uses, such as fast food with drive- throughs automotive dealers, and gasoline service stations, and convenience stores; they have also limited the height of structures to 35 feet instead of 60 feet. Commissioner Manuel believed the improvements proposed by the applicant will add much to the safety of the entrance. Commissioner Manuel commented there is a huge stacking • problem currently on Custer Avenue going all the way back to Pembridge Avenue. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2532 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -5- • Commissioner Thomas commented that the monetary contribution to fire and rescue emergency services was woefully inadequate. Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning #05 -09 of DMJ Holdings, LLC, as submitted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application 405 -09 of DMJ Holdings, LLC, submitted by Painter - Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.85 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Ruck Manuel, Ambrogi NO: Unger (Note: Commissioner Crosen, Oates, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING • Rezoning Application 904-09 of the Wampler Property, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 2.16 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers, for commercial use. This property is located west and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 11 and Stephenson Road and approximately 1,900 feet north of the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 44B -1 -12D in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the Planning Commission's August 5, 2009 meeting.) Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this rezoning application was extensively discussed by the Planning Commission at the August 5, 2009, meeting and the issues particularly discussed were the potential impacts on surrounding residential properties and how this site fit in with the improvements to the Route 11 condor, with signalization specifically discussed. Comparisons were made of the commitments made with this request against the needs of the area. Since the Planning Commission's original review of this request, the applicant revised their proffer statement and provided for several additional items to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. He said the applicant addressed restricting the hours of operation and restricting several uses on the property, recognizing the adjacentresidentially -zoned property. They also provided a more intensive screening plan to potentially mitigate the adjacent property impacts. In particular, the GDP was modified to show the location of the opaque element, a fence, which was previously six-feet high, but now is increased to eight -feet, and they have identified a location for additional evergreen plantings. He said the concern about continued intensification at this site needs to be carefully considered. He raised a concern about additional landscape plantings within the 25 -foot area which is already designated for three landscape plantings for every ten linear feet; in addition to the height of the fence. He recognized the benefit of an additional buffer, • but questioned how much more intense can this site become with regards to the landscaping and screening. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2533 Minutes of September 16, 2009 Mr. Ruddy next focused on the transportation concerns that were expressed previously. He pointed out that the • GDP has been updated and several commitments have been made; however, the staff still has some concerns with regards to transportation impacts and the impacts on the adjacent residential properties. -- Commissioner Ruckman the previous discussion on additional screening; he said a comment was made that possibly too many plantings were being placed in a small area, resulting in a poor survival rate for the plantings. Mr. Ruddy replied that if additional buffering is required, typically applicants designate an additional area to the minimum requirements. So, instead of utilizing only the minimum 25 feet, applicants would add an additional ten feet and put in an extra row of evergreen plantings. He said the County has recently modified the screening requirements to eliminate the three evergreen and deciduous trees in the buffer area, and allows a variety of plantings to make sure they all will survive. He said that some thought should be given to how much landscaping can be placed into an area. Commissioner Ruckman also pointed out that the applicant proffered out truck stops; he said he didn't think truck stops were an allowed use in a B2 District. Mr. Ruddy replied that was correct Commissioner Ruckman also inquired about car washes and Mr. Ruddy explained that car washes were proffered out as a possible use on this property. Commissioner Ruckman asked the Deputy Director - Transportation, John Bishop, about the necessity of a traffic signal at this site. Mr. Bishop stated that the County would prefer not to have a traffic signal at this location, but if an intensive use was established on this site, the TIA would call for a traffic signal. Mr. Bishop said there were other ways to make a safe access, besides a traffic signal, that could be utilized such as corridor improvements. Commissioner Ruckman inquired if a right- in/right -out entrance would take care of the problem; he said in the long term, there would be a four -lane road with a median. Mr. Bishop said left turns would be eliminated and he believed that would help from a safety and traffic flow perspective. • Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. was representing this application. Mr. Sowers reviewed with the Commission the property uses they had proffered out with this application. He said as long as the adjoining property continued to be used for residential, car washes would be proffered out as a potential use. Regarding the landscaping along the north, the west, and the southern property boundary, he said they are required to have a 25 -foot inactive buffer between the property line and the site; he said they are proposing an eight -foot fence with required plantings by ordinance, which is three plants per ten linear feet, typically done within a ten -foot easement. Mr. Sowers said within their 25 feet, they will have a fence and a ten - foot landscaped easement, and they still have yet another 15 feet to work with for their additional single row of — — — — evergreens. Mr. Sowers believed this was more than enough space for those plants to thrive. He added that it would be considered a site plan violation if the plants did not survive. Mr. Sowers wanted to make an additional point regarding the proffer value. He said for any use up to 2,000 trips per day, there would be a $75,000 cash proffer; for any use that generates more than 2,000 trips per day, the cash proffer would increase to $100,000. He said that for an initial site plan submitted for a self - service storage facility, there would be a $75,000 proffer and, if in the future, a more intensive use comes in, the applicant would pay the $25,000 difference to the county. Mr. Sowers stated that regarding the value of the transportation proffer, while the TIA shows at full build -out, with the most intensive use modeled, i.e. a gasoline service station and convenience mart, a traffic signal at the project entrance, it is only necessary once an additional 20,000 trips are factored in on Route 11 due to background traffic. He said the existing traffic on Route 11 is approximately 6,600 tpd across the property frontage; however, once background traffic is factored in, it increases to approx. 27,000 tpd. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2534 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -7- • Mr. Sowers next referred to the previous meeting in which an adjoining property owner, Mr. Simkovitch, had concerns about possible uses. Mr. Sowers said they have proffered to retain the existing trees along the northern and the western property boundaries and they will also provide additional plantings. Commissioner Unger asked if vehicular traffic traveling south on Route 11 would have a problem turning into the project. Mr. Sowers said the entrance would be required to meet VDOT standards and any turn lanes, depending on the use, would either have a taper or a full turn lane. Commissioner Mohn was in favor of the proffer to protect the existing trees along the property boundaries. He said he has had some experience with projects that intended to preserve mature trees; but within a few years, the trees died due to the impacts of the development. He recommended that the applicant take a close look at what';ind of area around those trees needed to be protected to ensure the trees will be preserved beyond the first few years of development of the site, especially since this is an important proffer for t "e adjoining property owners. He asked the applicant to give some thought about how this could be incorporated into the proffer statement. Commissioner Ruckman asked about the stormwater management for the site, in light of Mr. Simkovitch's statements that water runoff was directed towards his property when the trailer park was located on the site. Mr. Sowers explained the direction of the water runoff; he said State Law prohibits them from increasing the amount of runoff with the development. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Nickolas Pinshow, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he owned the property to the • south, consisting of 1.2 acres. Mr. Pinshow mentioned there were no existing trees on the southern border and he asked if landscaping could be placed along there. In addition, he asked about the applicant's intentions for the existing house on the property and possible uses. Mr. Sowers responded that the structure referred to by Mr. Pinshow is located approximately 12- 15 feet off the property line. He said when developing a B2 property which is adjacent to an RA property in residential use, such as Mr. Pinshow's property, a category `B" buffer must be provided. Mr. Sowers said this requires a 25 -foot inactive buffer and a 25 -foot active buffer; however, the structure is within the required 25 -foot inactive buffer. He said there is a mechanism within the ordinance such that, if Mr. Pinshow agrees, the buffer - - can be decreased, thereby allowing the house to stay, but he imagined if there was an intensive use on the property, the house would be removed. Mr. Sowers said that in either case, the proffer provides for the same eight -foot fence along Mr. Pinshow's full property boundary, as well as the required zoning district buffer, consisting of three trees per ten linear feet across the frontage with Mr. Pinshow's property. He said that in addition to those required plantings, they were also proffering to provide another row of evergreen trees along with the fence. Mr. Sowers believed the applicant had offered a dense buffer, in terms of landscaping and the eight -foot fence to ensure that his viewshed will not be impacted. No other citizen wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman Wilmot had questions for Mr. Bishop regarding the traffic signal scenario and utilization of a right -in, right -out entrance. Mr. Bishop explained the desire to not over proliferate traffic lights on key roadways; Mr. Bishop said the utilization of the traffic signal was used mostly as a means to point out the impact. Mr. Bishop said the applicant referred to the background projects; however, all of those are by -right projects due to previous rezonings and have their own transportation proffers. He said regardless of that fact, a traffic signal is not warranted here without this development. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2535 Minutes of September 16, 2009 • Commissioner Ruckman referred to the applicant's comments regarding a "pass -by" traffic allowance and that possibly, the traffic signal would not be required according to the TIA. Mr. Bishop said the applicant was referring to the time of build out; he said the applicant expects to be built out before the other background trips come to fruition. Mr. Bishop believed the applicant was stating that should this be the case at the time of their build out, regardless of whether they were to build a gas station, since those other background trips would not have come to fruition, a signal at that time would still not be warranted. Mr. Bishop said that VDOT allows 40% pass -by traffic with this type of use, which is saying those aren't destination trips, they happen to be passing by. Commissioner Ruckman said the right -in, right -out entrance would be in lieu ofthe traffic signal and Mr. Bishop replied yes. Commissioner Ruckman asked if the right -in, right -out entrance would simply delay an eventual traffic signal. Mr. Bishop replied if a right -in, right -out entrance is installed, there would be no need for a traffic signal at this location. Commissioner Ruckman agreed B2 zoning was probably appropriate for this location; however, he expressed concern about the traffic pattern here and whether or not the County should require a right -in, right - out movement for this site, so that a point is not reached sometime in the future when a traffic signal would be needed. Commissioner Ruckman next made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning based on the requirement that a right -in, right -out entrance is constructed for this site. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas. The motion failed, however, by the following majority vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL W/ RT -IN, RT -OUT) Ruckman, Thomas NO: Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Madagan, Triplett, Mohn Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning as presented This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of — Rezoning Application 404 -09 of the W ampler Property, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, hic., to rezone 2.16 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The majority vote recommending approval of the rezoning was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Madagan, Triplett, Mohn NO: Ruck Thomas (Note: Commissioners Crosen, Oates, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2536 Minutes of September 16, 2009 • Master Development Plan 902 -09 of Fieldstone Apartments, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to construct two garden apartment buildings with a total of 25 units. The property is located on the south side of Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659), approximately 1,200 feet east of Charming Drive and 0.5 miles west of _ Greenwood Road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 55- A -181C in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Administrative Approval Authority be Granted Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this MDP (master development plan) is for two garden apartments on 5.58 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance). She said the site will be accessed off an entrance on Valley Mill Road with a right -turn taper lane and an acceleration lane. Ms. Perkins said the development will include the construction of a ter, -foot paved path along a portion of Valley Mill Road, which will transition to a pat: along Abrams Creek. She noted that the MDP` also depicts the buffers that will be provided along the site. Ms. Perkins pointed out a reduced 50 -foot road efficiency buffer through a portion of the site; she said this buffer will consist of a six -foot berm and a single row of evergreen trees. She noted that through the remainder of the site, there is a full- distance road efficiency buffer of 80 feet in width and consisting of a double row of evergreen trees. She also noted that adjacent to the residential property, there is a 100 -foot full- screen buffer provided along the property boundary consisting of a six -foot opaque fence and three plants per ten linear feet. She added that the MDP is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, staff concerns have been addressed, and the plan is in a form that is administratively approvable. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with G-eenway Engineering, was representing this MDP and was available to answer questions from the Commission. • Chairman Wilmot called for anyone wishing to speak regarding this application. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. No issues of concern were raised by the Commission. There were no comments made to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend that -----the staff be granted administrative approval authority for the disposition of Master Development Plan #02 -09 of Fieldstone Apartments, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to construct two garden apartment buildings with a total of 25 units. (Note: Commissioners Crosen, Oates, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 (Zoning Ordinance) and Chapter 144 (Subdivision Ordinance), in accordance with the Rural Areas Study. Senior Planning, Candice E. Perkins, reported that on April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ms. Perkins stated that the report contained recommendations from the Rural Areas Subcommittee, a subcommittee Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2537 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -10- created by the Board and charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County. She said one of the recommendations contained in the Rural Areas Subcommittee's report was to "Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision Requirements: 'Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres; *Increase the preservation lot (cluster set -aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a minimum 60 percent of the parent tract; and, 'Removal of the density exception for the rural preservation lot." Ms. Perkins stated that this agenda item is the first to implement some of the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Report. She said this ordinance amendment specifically addresses the changes to the rural preservation subdivision requirements contained within Article IV of the Zoning Ordinance and Articles II and V of the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Perkins proceeded to review each of the draft amendment proposals with the Planning Commission: -Rural preservation tract to be counted towards the permitted residential density of the parent tract; -Increase the rural preservation tract requirement from 40 percent to 60 percent; -Reduced lot width for Waal preservation lots and exemption for rural preservation lots from the maximum depth requirements; -Elimination of agricultural lots from the RA District; -Permitted RA uses - addition of animal husbandry and farm wineries, removal of cottage occupation signs; -Conditional RA uses - addition of off- premmse farm markets; commercial stables, equestrian facilities, and commercial riding facilities; petting farms; bed and breakfasts; country clubs (with or without banquet facilities); welding businesses, and cottage occupation signs; -Additional standards for farm wineries, and welding businesses; -Revisions to the cul- de -sac length requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance; -New definitions that correspond to the new permitted/ conditional uses. Ms. Perkins noted that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. She said the DRRC requested some minor changes • and recommended that the draft ordinance be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Mohn commented that if the Rural Preservation Lot option is to be encouraged in the rural areas for residential development, as opposed to the five -acre lot option, the elimination of the rural preservation lot as a bonus lot needed to be reconsidered, or at least its use in meeting the yield for the project. Commissioner Mohn believed the County should do as much as possible to encourage and incentivize that choice. Commissioner Thomas believed the increase in the minimum size of the preservation tract was too large. He commented that 40 percent may have been too small, but 60 percent is going to make it almost - impossible to get the allowed yield on the properties with our current regulations. Commissioner Thomas suggested a minimum size of at least 50 percent; he said 60 percent almost makes the ordinance non - useable. No action was needed by the Planning Commission at this time. The staff noted that comments from the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Health Systems and Sewage Disposal Ordinance, in accordance with the Rural Areas Study. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this item is virtually a complete revision to Chapter 161 of the Frederick County Code for sewage disposal and health systems. Ms. Perkins stated that the changes are in accordance with the recommendations from the Rural Areas Report of the Rural Areas • Subcommittee. One of the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Subcommittee's report was to revise the health system requirements. Ms. Perkins said the report recommended the following enhancements to Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2538 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -11- the existing health system requirements applicable to on -site private residential health systems: -Increase the reserve drainfield area to 100 percent. The current regulations require a 50 percent reserve area, which does not enable a homeowner to fully replace a failed health system. -Continue to allow health systems that meet the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) General Approval requirements. Prohibit health systems that are permitted through the Provisional and Experimental Approval Process. -Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems and require Board of Supervisors' approval for pump - and -haul permits. -Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems. Ms. Perkins said the draft changes were reviewed by the Health Department on various occasions and the Health Department is satisfied with the revisions. Ms. Perkins proceeded to review each of the revisions with the Planning Commission. Ms. Perkins noted that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. She said the DRRC requested some minor changes and recommended that the draft ordinance be sent to the Plan:= ng Commission for discussion. Commissioner Unger had questions for the staff regarding the revision dealing with replacement or repair of on -site systems. This revision requires the property owners within 300 feet of a public or private sewer system to connect to that system when their system ceases to operate in a sanitary manner or requires major alterations. Ms. Perkins said a provision was added after the DRRC meeting stipulating that if the property owner could not gain access to the public or private sewer system, they could seek a waiver from the Board to repair the existing system. Commissioner Mohn referred to the reserved drainfield set aside requirement increase from 50 percent to 100 percent; he asked how some of the existing, legally- nonconforming lots in the county, which rely on private health systems in places like Shawneeland, would address the issue if they could not provide a viable • reserve area that's equal to 100 percent. Ms. Perkins said if there was not an existing sewage system defined on the property, sites would have to be consolidated in order to achieve approval. She added if a property already has an approval letter from the Health Department, that property would be honored; however, anything new that comes in would have to meet the new ordinance. Commissioner Ruckman asked about the section on enforcement where various dollar amounts are designated for violations. He asked if this was enforced by the Planning Department or the Health Department. Ms. Perkins replied it would be enforced by the Health Department and they would issue civil tickets. No action was needed by the Planning Commission at this time. The staff noted that comments from the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, to include Commercial Recreation (Indoor) as a Permitted Use in the MI (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that Frederick County has received a request to include Commercial Recreation Operated Indoor to the permitted uses in the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. She said this use is currently permitted in the B2 (Business General) and the B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. Ms. Perkins said that while the requested recreation is for a dog training program, this ordinance amendment would be applicable to all types of commercial recreation. She reported that design standards have • been included for this use when established in the M 1 District. The standards address patron parking and safety, along with regulations when this use is developed in a master planned industrial park. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2539 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -12- Ms. Perkins stated that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. She said the DRRC discussed the appropriateness - - -- of this use in the MI District; the DRRC believed certain elements of indoor recreation maybe appropriate, but other uses may not be, such as swimming or bowling. The DRRC recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, within a master planned industrial park. She said with that change, the DRRC sent the proposed amendment forward to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether this was an appropriate permanent solution for this issue. He commented that when an operation is restricted through hours of operation, the property would be more valuable for other MI uses; therefore, he considered this as a very interim solution for a single applicant at this time while the economy is slow. Commissioner Thomas preferred to entertain. --more long -term solution. He noted that equestrian training is allowed in the Waal areas and he questioned why indoor dog training would not be permitted there as well. He considered indoor animal training areas to be more appropriate in a rural areas setting rather than an industrial area. Commissioner Manuel pointed out that the definition does not limit this to training facilities, but it includes swimming pools, archery, and bowling, etc. Ms. Perkins said the amendment would include anything classified as commercial indoor recreation, and is not solely limited to dog training. She said if one of the uses wanted to go inside a master planned industrial park, they would have to meet the designated hours of operation; but, if a parcel was found outside of a master planned industrial park, the hours of operation would -not apply. Chairman Wilmot cautioned against letting budget costs, etc., dictate what the Commission does • with the zoning districts. Commissioner Unger preferred to see this particular amendment restricted to dog training only at this time, until some of the issues could be more thoroughly considered. Commissioner Thomas and other members of the Commission agreed with Commissioner Unger's suggestion. Commissioners concluded that in the meantime, a long -term solution could be studied. No action was needed by the Planning Commission at this time. The staff noted that comments from the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Wly� submitted, Wilmot, Chairman • Eric 1Z. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2540 Minutes of September 16, 2009