Loading...
PC_12-02-09_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES ` OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 2, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/ Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; 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 Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the December 2, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. MEETING MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the October 7, 2009 meeting. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the October 21, 2009 meeting. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2573 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -z- ` COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee - 11/23/09 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed and acted on the following five items: 1) agreed to allow at least six months to see if the truck warning signs on Double Church Road will work before going through the process of restricting trucks; 2) recommended that the Board of Supervisors make a'request to VDOT to vacate the portion of road in front of the proposed Walgreens on Dairy Comer Lane in accordance with approved proffers; 3) recommended approval of the 2010 -2011 transportation portion of the Capital Improvement Plan; 4) received notice that funding for the Sulphur Springs Road improvements is still in place after State budget cuts; and, 5) received a report from Deputy Director - Transportation that all current approved revenue sharing projects in the County remain in place after State budget cuts; future projects unknown at this time. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 11117/09 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the HRAB discussed the application requesting a rezoning of 10.33 acres from B2 with an HA (Historic Area) Overlay to B2 with an HA (Historic Area) Overlay with revised proffers for the historic Jordan Springs property. He said the HRAB recommended approval of the revised proffers. • Sanitation Authority (SA) Commissioner Unger reported that the SA is seeking a $5 million bond to do work at the Red Bud pump station and the Anderson water plant., He said the SA sought the bond in order to save money on taxes and will only have to pay about 45% of the total taxes. Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 11/06/09 Mtg. Commissioner Madagan reported that the EDC met to discuss the proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Based on guidance from the Board of Supervisors, the EDC was told to maintain a status quo budget; therefore, the budget presented was the same as the current fiscal year. 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. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2574 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -3- PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Part 401 - RA (Rural Areas) District; Article II, Part 204 - Additional Regulations for Specific Uses; Article 1, Part 101 — Definitions and Word Usage; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Definitions; and Article V, Design Standards. This amendment includes: revisions to permitted and conditional uses in the RA District; revisions to lot types and depth/width requirements; revisions to the rural preservation subdivision requirements; and inclusion of new definitions and performance standards for certain uses. The changes are as follows: • Section 165- 401.02 —Permitted uses —Revisions to add animal husbandry, farm wineries, and remove cottage occupation signs. • Section 165- 401.03 — Conditional uses — Revisions to add Bed and Breakfasts, Country clubs, with or without banquet facilities, Off - premise farm markets, Petting farms, Cottage occupation signs, and welding. • Section 165- 401.04A — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to clarify that the density is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of . the previous amendment to the section). • Section 165- 401.04B — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to clarify that eligibility for the exception is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section); and revision to provide that rural preservation lots count against the permitted density of a rural preservation subdivision. • Section 165- 401.06B — Permitted lot sizes — Family division lots — Revision to clarify that eligibility for family division lots is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section). • Section 165- 401.06C — Permitted lot sizes — Agricultural lots — Revision to eliminate the provision for agricultural lots as a permitted lot type in the RA District. • Section 165- 401.06D — Permitted lot sizes — Rural preservation lots — Revisions to change from 40% to 60% the minimum percentage of the parent tract that must be preserved as a rural preservation lot. • Section 165-401.08A— Minimum width; maximum depth— Revisions to change the minimum width and maximum depth for lots in the RA District. • Section 165- 401.08B - Revision to make rural preservation tracts exempt from the maximum depth requirement and increase the maximum depth to width ratio to 5:1. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2575 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -4- • • Section 165- 204.22 — Addition of new performance standards for Farm Wineries in the RA District. • Section 165 - 204.23 — Addition of new performance standards for Welding Repair in the RA District. • Section 165 - 101.02 - Definitions and word usage — Addition of definitions for Bed and Breakfast, Country Club, Farmer's Market, and Farm Winery. • Section 144 -2 — Definitions and word usage — Revisions to the definitions of major rural subdivision and minor rural subdivision to remove references to agricultural lots. • Section 144 -17 - Streets — Revision to the cul -de -sac length requirement. • Section 144 -31B — Major rural subdivisions - Revisions to remove reference to agricultural lots. • Section 144 -31C — Minor rural subdivisions - Revisions to remove references to agricultural lots. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the proposed amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinance have been designed to implement the Rural Areas Report and • Recommendations adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2009. Ms. Perkins reviewed each of the changes presented in the Commission's agenda, as well as the letters sent to the public. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Paul Anderson said he and his wife, Mary, operate a farm in the Back Creek District. Mr. Anderson said he was the President of the Frederick County Farm Bureau with an approximate membership of 245 families. He noted the Farm Bureau has been working with Frederick County throughout the RA Study and the development of ordinances to implement the study. Mr. Anderson said the proposed revisions to the ordinance raised a number of concerns for him and other members of the Farm Bureau. He was concerned about some of the conditional uses listed on Page 3, such as: E. Manufacture or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipment; O. Auction Houses; S. Sawmills and Planing Mills; and, U. Retail or wholesaling of nursery stock and related products, etc. Mr. Anderson was concerned that farmers would have to apply for a conditional use permit from the County to conduct these activities, which represented a typical activity on any average farm operation. He thought this might be referring to commercial activities; however, it is not specifically stated such in the amendment. Mr. Anderson remarked that agricultural is struggling to make ends meet and he was not in favor of additional requirements and restrictions to fanning operations. Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, referred to the 60% reserve area within the Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision requirements of the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Goode said he favored the 50% reserve area, as recommended by the Planning Commission, rather than the 60 %; he thought 50% was more reasonable and 60% seemed too high for designing projects. Another concern raised by Mr. Goode was the lack of "grandfathering" for projects already submitted and within the • review process. He said if a project had already started and was ultimately going to end up with a large Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2576 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -5- reserve area, under the grandfather clause, the applicant could plot a few lots and after a few years, plot a • few more, but not plat the reserve lot until the very end. If there is no grandfathering clause, he said landowners may rush to plat a number of lots to preserve them and he was not sure that is the goal for Frederick County. He said some people may have invested a significant amount of money in surveying or septic system area searches and they should not lose the value of that investment because of this proposed amendment. He said he did not see the gain in forcing people to hurry or else lose something they've already paid for. Mr. Goode's final comment was under "Permitted Uses, H. Home occupations (as defined);" he said he did not see the definition for home occupation within the document. Mr. Gary McDonald, Back Creek District, was a fanner and was also concerned about the same issue raised by Mr. Anderson. Mr. McDonald was concerned about the possibility he may be required to get a conditional use permit to sell hay, pack fruit, or use the welding shops on his farm. Mr. McDonald spoke about the loss of area feed stores, packing and fruit companies, and implement companies, etc. He thought more should be being done to support local agriculture. Mr. Warren Golightly, Shawnee District, stated that he's owned and operated a tax preparation and book keeping service, trading as "Golightly Taxes, LLC," for the last 33 years. Mr. Golightly was concerned about how this ordinance amendment may affect his business; he was interested in the idea of "grandfathering" of existing businesses. He said the ordinance references the removal of cottage occupation signs; he said he has a business sign in front of his home on Carpers Valley Road. Mr. Golightly said that he is also part owner of a farm, which has been in the family since 1893. He wanted to pass the farm on to his heirs and he was not sure how the proposed changes would affect his property. Mr. Golightly said he did not want to subdivide his property, but he did not want to restrict his heirs in doing so. He wanted to know how the ordinance amendment would affect his farm and his business. He also wanted to know the public ramifications and what this was doing for the community and Frederick • County. Mr. Rick Beatty, Back Creek District, was in favor of grandfathering any existing rural preservation pieces. Mr. Beatty said he owned a rural preservation tract and was told certain facts when his tract was subdivided. He simply wanted to get some clarification on these revisions and how they would affect his property. Mr. Scot Marsh, surveyor with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was seeking clarification on the implementation of the proposed amendment. He believed the preliminary sketch plans that have been submitted, reviewed, and approved should be given special consideration for grandfathering. He thought applicants should be able to continue with the process as approved on those preliminary sketch plans in which the planning has been completed and a soil evaluation has been submitted, in addition to other plans that may still be in the process of the next phase of the approval after the preliminary sketch plan, such as the final road design. He said the way he interpreted this current revision, if it is approved as written, those plans would have to go back to the drawing board because the ordinance amendment would become effective immediately. Mr. Marsh stated that if there is an approved preliminary sketch plan with a 40% preservation lot and the land owner expedites platting and recording of the preservation lot, then by right that property should be grandfathered in and given the full provisions of the older ordinance. Mr. Marsh urged the Commission to review the implementation of the ordinance for those plans that have been submitted and approved and are in the process. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2577 Minutes of December 2, 2009 . Ms. Perkins returned to the podium to address the citizen comments. Regarding the concerns over the conditional uses and the permitted uses, Ms. Perkins said the ordinance does not apply to an individual farmer producing goods on his property and selling his produce, hay, etc. She said it does not take away anything that was previously permitted. She explained that this includes manufacturing and sales of feed and other farm supplies and equipment. Regarding the off - premise farm markets and the wayside stands, she said those do not apply if they are located on individual's farm where they are selling the items they produce on their farm. Ms. Perkins said the off - premise faun market amendment refers to someone wanting to set up an area where individuals could congregate to sell their produce in one location and are not located on the farm. Furthermore, auction houses do not apply to miscellaneous auctions individuals would have at their home, along with sawmills and planing mills. Ms. Perkins said the ordinance amendment is basically referring to large, stand -alone commercial operations. Regarding the question of a definition of "Home Occupation," Ms. Perkins said there is already a definition in the ordinance that applies to home occupations and therefore, one was not included in this amendment. Regarding the concern about existing, platted preservation lots, Ms. Perkins said those will not be affected by this ordinance amendment. She said if it is already recorded and already in existence, this ordinance does not apply. Regarding the implementation policy, she said the amendments have been discussed over the last year and a half She said with the previous ordinance amendment which was advertised over a year and a half ago, it included a grandfathering policy. However, this ordinance does not because of the length of time it has been presented to the public. She said preservation tracts that are platted upon adoption of the ordinance will be grandfathered, but nothing else. • Commissioner Oates spoke about the issue pf grandfathering the rural preservation lots. He said once the 40% preservation tract is recorded, the applicant will not lose any density and they will get the same number of lots because they are still under the old guidelines. Ms. Perkins replied this was correct; she said they would be vested in what they showed on their sketch plan. Commissioner Oates said if the applicant has gotten this far, they have already paid their initial fee. He said if additional fees are established by the County in the future, it should not be applied to them, as far as a plat review fee. Staff made note of the comment; staff pointed out that the fee structure was not being discussed at this time. Staff was not proposing any new fees. Commissioner Kriz believed 60% was too high for the parent tract to remain intact as a contiguous parcel and he thought 50 %, as previously discussed by the Planning Commission, was more reasonable. Commissioner Oates agreed, but stated that the Board of Supervisors had already made their decision on this percentage. Commissioner Thomas said he didn't think the Board's decision would preclude the Commission from making an alternate recommendation to the Board for their consideration. Commissioner Thomas agreed that 60% was too high, especially when you take out for roads, septic fields and systems, etc. He said it was the Commission's responsibility to give the Board its best recommendation. Commissioner Oates thought it was also a mistake to take away the bonus lot, which was originally intended to be added in and the preservation tract is not counted. He said hopefully, between the bonus lot and the 50 %, it will encourage people to continue using rural preservation subdivisions instead of the five -acre lot subdivisions. 1 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2578 Minutes of December 2, 2009 Commissioner Kriz totally agreed with Commissioner Oates' comments and thought the Commission should put forth the same recommendation previously sent forward by the Commission, with the 50% and the bonus lot. Commissioner Unger said he didn't have a problem with 50% and he recalled this was discussed at length; however, he also recalled that the width and depth of the lot was changed so that it would work better. He thought the change in width and depth was the helping point in going to 60 %. Commissioner Oates next referred to the amendment under Section 1651301.08 Minimum width; maximum depth, (b) Lots fronting on the turnaround of a cul -de -sac. He said there was a reduction to 80 feet from the original 100 feet, but only 50 feet is required if the lot is on the street. Commissioner Oates said generally, cul -de -sac lots are pie - shaped. He didn't understand why the lot width was wider for a cul-de-sac and narrower for lots perpendicular to the street. Other Commission members agreed. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend a revision to the proposed amendment to change the cul -de -sac lot width at setback from 80 feet to 50 feet. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to recommend approval of the Rural Area District revisions and requested the Board of Supervisors strongly consider reducing the set aside tract for the rural preservation parent lot from 60% to 50% (Page 5, 165- 401.04.C, Rural Preservation Lots (1)(a)) and for the bonus lot to be added back into the ordinance to allow a better utilization of the ordinance and to encourage use and preservation of usable tracts. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Rural Area District revisions with a change in the cul -de -sac lot width at setback from 80 feet to 50 feet and further recommends that the Board of Supervisors strongly consider reducing the set aside tract for the rural preservation parent lot from 60% to 50% and that the bonus lot be added back in as a part of the ordinance to allow better utilization and to encourage use and preservation of usable tracts. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from this meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers. This revision contains new requirements for onsite sewage systems, license requirements, requirements for permanent pump and hauls, replacement or repair of onsite systems, maintenance requirements for alternative systems, and revisions to the violations and penalties. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this amendment is in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations referred to in the previous amendment. Ms. Perkins briefly described the proposed changes for the Commission. L Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2579 Minutes of December 2, 2009 Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to • speak: Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, said he believed a problem existed with a general failure to fix disposal systems that have been in existence for many years and are failing. He said there is no trigger [within the code] requiring a homeowner to fix failing systems. Mr. Goode said increasing the reserve to 100% of what's required, in his opinion, was a waste of land, if there is no trigger to require the system to be fixed. He believed a 50% reserve area should be enough and density regulations should be handled directly by themselves. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Thomas had mixed feelings about the 50% versus 100% reserve area. Commissioner Thomas said all septic systems with drainfields will eventually fail and when they do is a timing issue; he said it was dependant on the porosity of the soil of the drainfield. He said the only way to maintain a drainfield is to tear it out and replace the soils once the porosity has been changed enough that it no longer percolates; he said there is nothing else that can be done with it. Commissioner Thomas commented that having a 50% reserve area will not provide enough space to replace the drainfield and until the County allows alternative treatment systems for homeowners, the only thing they can do is remove the failing drainfield and replace it. He said, hopefully, they will have enough reserve area to get the percolation and porosity that's required by the Health Department. He noted that the 100% reserve area will take more land, but if the system fails, it is the only alternative. Ms. Perkins said Frederick County is now required by the State of Virginia to allow all of • the alternative sewage disposal systems. Ms. Perkins said that if a conventional system with a 50% reserve fails, an alternative sewage disposal system would need to be installed because it requires less amount of drainfield than conventional systems. She said in Frederick County, there are already a high number of alternative systems. Commissioner Oates stated that through his own surveying experience, he found that the 100% reserve area is not impossible to plat and did not cost any more money. He said with the last five subdivisions he worked on, they did not lose a lot because of not being able to find a 100% reserve area. Commissioner Oates said there are several rural counties to the southwest that require 50% and Fauquier County requires 200 %; however, he believed the 100% was reasonable. Commissioner Unger said that past input from soil scientists on this issue recommended the 100% reserve area. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers, as proposed. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers. This revision contains new requirements for onsite sewage systems, license requirements, requirements for permanent pump and hauls, replacement or repair of • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2580 Minutes of December 2, 2009 am • onsite systems, maintenance requirements for alternative systems, and revisions to the violations and penalties. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from this meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning k07 -09 of the Burns Property, Valley Mill Road, submitted by PHR &A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.) to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General), with proffers, for commercial uses. The properties are located in the northwest corner of the intersection with Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Martin Drive. The properties are further identified with P.I.N 54- A -112Q, 54- A -112D, and 54- A -112P in the Red Bud Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the Commission's October 7, 2009 meeting.) Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that subsequent to the Planning Commission's public hearing on this item on October 7, 2009, staff has evaluated the status of Martin Drive, the key access to this proposed commercial project. He said it was determined that Martin Drive is not a state - maintained road. He said the applicant has modified the request and the GDP (generalized development plan) provides no improvement and no access to Martin Drive; it maintains improvement on Valley Mill Road, consistent with the previous proffer. Mr. Ruddy said the key changes deal with direct access, as follows: 1) The applicant has prohibited direct access to Valley Mill Road and stated that primary access shall be through the adjoining property, at a point identified as an inter -parcel connection; access to Martin Drive shall be prohibited at this time. 2) The applicant has proffered that all improvements to Valley Mill Road, proffered either by this project or the adjacent Walgreens, Dairy Corner Place project, must be completed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 3) The applicant has continued the ten -foot hiker -biker trail across this property's frontage with Valley Mill Road, provided a sidewalk along Martin Drive, and proffered the construction of a sidewalk along the Dowell J. Howard School property. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating there are some off -site transportation impacts that remain unaddressed, especially in the area of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. He said this project does not propose any monetary contribution to offset any of those transportation impacts. Further, the improvements proposed for Martin Drive have been eliminated with no comparable monetary value provided. There were questions from the Commission members about the access through the Walgreens site concerning an access agreement and a consolidated TIA for both sites. Commissioner Mohn said one of his initial concerns was how the use of Martin Drive was going to work with that entrance and an inter -parcel connection between the Walgreens site and this property. He believed the overall transportation system was improved with Martin Drive now out of the equation. He said, generally speaking, it may be an improvement on the vehicular traffic movement. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2581 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -10- Mr. Patrick Sowers with PHR&A was representing this application. Mr. Sowers said the applicant has reached an agreement with the developer of the Walgreens, Dairy Corner Place site for access through the Walgreens site; he said they are scheduled to go to closing in the last week of December 2009. Mr. Sowers said all of the easement plats will be recorded at the time of closing. He noted that prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting, the applicant will have the agreement in place, which is both a proffered condition and a private agreement through easement. He said the Martin Drive sidewalk would be built within the applicant's property boundary; the existing right -of -way is large enough to improve Martin Drive to State standards without impacting the sidewalk constructed by the applicant. From the landscaping standpoint, Mr. Sowers said a Category B buffer would be required and would address the landscaping element adjacent to residential uses across Martin Drive and adjacent to the north. Regarding the sidewalk at the Dowell J. Howard property, he said Frederick County Schools will be dedicating ten feet of right -of -way across their property frontage and the applicant would construct the sidewalk within the State's right -of -way. Mr. Sowers continued, stated the traffic volume for the Bums property is expected to be 10% of the built -out trips on Valley Mill Road; therefore, the majority of their transportation improvements will occur on Valley Mill Road. Frontage improvements on Valley Mill Road and the left- turn lane at Dowell J. Howard were discussed. He said the applicant's proffer stipulates the site cannot be developed until all of the improvements were made all the way out to Route 7. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. • Commissioner Mohn spoke about the proposed sidewalk on the school's property and the preparation of documents and plats to expedite the process. Commissioner Mohn said he did not have a problem with the accountability to make this proposal happen; however, he asked the applicant to what extent he was committed in sharing the costs of document preparation or providing the documents the school is going to need to dedicate the right -of -way. Commissioner Mohn said that given the budget situation the county and the schools are facing, and setting a 180-day clock on something that may not be a priority for the school, it would seem to be appropriate for the applicant to either provide those documents or provide a cost- sharing opportunity to the extent possible. Mr. Sowers believed the solution would be for the applicant to prepare all of the documents necessary for the dedication in order to expedite the process and they would commit to a 12- month time frame. Commission members asked Mr. Bishop for his opinion on having the applicant prepare the dedication documents within the time frame suggested. Mr. Bishop believed it was appropriate for the applicant to prepare the documents. He suggested the improvements could be bonded in order to provide the applicant with some flexibility for their certificate of occupancy and also provide protection for the County. No other issues remained to be discussed by the Commission. Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application #07 -09 of the Bums Property, on Valley Mill Road, submitted by PHR &A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.) to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General), with proffers, for commercial uses, with the understanding that the applicant has made a • commitment to preparing all of the necessary documents for the Valley Mill Road right -of -way necessary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2582 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -11- • for the installation of the sidewalk on the school's frontage within one year of approval of the rezoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application 407 -09 of the Burns Property, on Valley Mill Road, submitted by PHR &A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.) to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General), with proffers, for commercial uses, with the understanding that the applicant has made a commitment to preparing all of the necessary documents for the Valley Mill Road right -of -way necessary for the installation of the sidewalk on the Frederick County School's frontage within one year of approval of the rezoning. (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from this meeting.) Subdivision Request #05 -09 of Winchester Metals, Inc., submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., to create a subdivision of 15.828 acres into two lots of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing use. The property is located on the southwest side of Ebert Road (Rt. 837), approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and Ebert Road. The property is further identified by P.I.N. 44 -A -12A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval is Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the applicant has requested a subdivision of a 15.828 -acre parcel into two parcels consisting of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing uses. Mr. Cheran said both parcels are zoned M1 (Light Industrial) and the current use of the property is metal recycling. Mr. Cheran said this property was zoned MI when Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967; therefore, the property does not have an approved master development plan (MDP) associated with it. He said the MDP has thus been waived for this subdivision request. The properties are located within the North East Land Use Plan and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He said land divisions in the M1 District without an approved MDP must be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Mr. Cheran said the subdivision has met the requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements; however, the design elements associated with the MDP have not been waived. Mr. Cheran stated that staff is seeking administrative approval authority on this subdivision request. He said a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding this request is desired. Commissioner Thomas commented that both parcels will have frontage on Ebert Road, but access is through only one of the sites. He also noted that both of the sites will have access to Martinsburg Pike, through an existing 60 -foot right -of -way, if they would choose to use it. Mr. Scott Marsh, land surveyor with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was representing this project. Mr. Marsh said the proposal for this subdivision is not seeking to change the existing • conditions. He said the existing features and entrance will remain the same. He said VDOT has reviewed this subdivision, they have provided an approval letter, and have signed the plats. Mr. Marsh said the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2583 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -12- . intent here is to obtain approval for administrative review and approval by the staff. Regarding the right - of -way to Martinsburg Pike, he said the owner would have to seek commercial entrance permits from VDOT in order to construct that entrance. He said yes, they do have frontage on Martinsburg Pike, but the access would be controlled by an approved entrance. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this time. No one came forward to speak and she closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend to the Board that the staff be given administrative approval authority for this subdivision. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend that staff be given administrative approval authority for Subdivision Request #05 -09 of Winchester Metals, Inc., submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., to create a subdivision of 15.828 acres into two lots of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing use. The property is located on the southwest side of Ebert Road (Rt. 837). (Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING WITH THE ADDITION OF STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance is to include references to the traffic impact analysis standards which were adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2009. Ms. Perkins said the references have been included in both the zoning and subdivision ordinances for rezoning, master development plan, site plan, and subdivision design plan processes. She said this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) at their October 22, 2009, meeting where they endorsed the changes and sent it forward to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Oates said this item has been extensively discussed at the Transportation Committee level over the last couple years. He said many of the stake holders provided their input and helped to write it. Commissioner Oates commented that at this point, it has had unanimous backing. Commissioner Kriz said he also attended the Transportation Committee meetings when this was discussed. He agreed the developers and others who were concerned with this wrote quite a bit of the amendment themselves. No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission and they were satisfied with what had been presented to them. • --- --- - - - - -- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2584 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -13- • DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE TO INCLUDE REVISIONS TO THE HISTORIC AREA (HA) OVERLAY ZONE Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the current Overlay Zone contains criteria for establishing HA (Historic Area) Districts, criteria for determining historic significance, and general regulations, as well as an administrative section. However, the ordinance does not contain any criteria for the development or alterations of structures and, therefore, any improvements, such as landscaping, parking, and so forth would have to follow the regulations for the underlying zoning district. Ms. Perkins said the staff is proposing revisions to the HA Zone to address certain design elements for new construction, as well as some other minor updates and revisions. She said specifically, the revisions and additions include changes to the general regulations, some additional guidelines for constructions or alterations, including scale, signs, etc., along with some parking surface material regulations and some minor additions to the administration section. Ms. Perkins said the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board) discussed this at their September 15, 2009, meeting and had some minor revisions, but did endorse the rendition presented to the Planning Commission this evening. She said the DRRC reviewed this at their meeting of October 22, 2009; they agreed with the changes and forwarded a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mohn suggested the word "shall" be used instead of the word "should" under the Guidelines for New Construction and Alterations to ensure the Commission will attain what they expected in these areas. is No other comments or issues were raised by the Commission. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Planning Commission's Bylaws state that in the Fall of every year, the Planning Commission is to review the bylaws and consider any changes for adoption in the following January. Mr. Lawrence said the Bylaws Committee reviewed and discussed the Bylaws and the Rules & Regulations in October and determined there were no recommended changes; however, in terms of the actual Bylaws, they believed it was appropriate to change the Code citations because the Commission had recodified the Zoning Ordinance. Another recommended change was to remove the word, "early," from Section 8- 3 -11 -1 in order to provide additional flexibility, if the Commission decides to waive the 11:00 p.m. adjournment guideline. Mr. Lawrence said if the Commission was satisfied with those two recommended revisions, he would bring the Bylaws back to the Commission in the January 6, 2010, agenda for adoption. The Commission members were satisfied with the recommendations and had no further changes to the Bylaws or the Rules and Regulations. • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2585 Minutes of December 2, 2009 -14— V CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER 16, 2009 REGULAR MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced that no items had been submitted for the Commission's consideration for the December 16, 2009, meeting. Therefore, Chairman Wilmot announced the cancellation of that meeting. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wil ot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2586 Minutes of December 2, 2009