Loading...
PC_09-15-10_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 15, 2010. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; and Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to adopt the September 15, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the August 18, 2010, minutes of the Frederick County Planning Commission were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 9/03/10 Mtg. Commissioner Madagan reported that the EDC discussed target business sectors that should be proactively pursued and to continue with methods used to date. He said EDC members were 40 Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2681 Minutes of September 15, 2010 -z- • informed that a work force career video is being produced and will be taken to area schools. He said the video shows available job opportunities and technology with local employers. The final item was a discussion about the competitive nature of water and sewer rates between Frederick County and the local area. Commissioner Madagan said Frederick County was very competitive with surrounding localities. He said one item of note was that Warren County was significantly higher than the other localities. Comprehensive Policy Plans Committee (CPPC) — 9/13/10 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the CPPC discussed the Tasker Woods Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment. He said the CPPC decided that the northern portion, which was proposed for commercial, should instead be residential. Commissioner Oates said the CPPC also recommended approval of the southern portion to residential. He said the CPPC then forwarded the item on to the Planning Commission. 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. • ---- --- - - - - -- COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II, Supplementary use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165- 204.19B, Telecommunications Facilities, Commercial. This proposed amendment is a revision to the waiver provision for lattice -style telecommunication facilities. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this is a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment to revise the waiver provision for lattice -style towers. She said the ordinance currently allows the Planning Commission to waive the monopole tower requirement when towers are located outside of the UDA (Urban Development Area) and when they are not located adjacent to historic sites. Ms. Perkins stated that the proposed text amendment before the Commission tonight would allow the Board of Supervisors to waive the monopole requirement where existing or planned residential areas will not be impacted and when the site is not adjacent to identified historical resources. Ms. Perkins said this text amendment was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee) at their meeting in August. She recalled that some of their comments included a recommendation for modifying the ordinance to require camouflaged towers and a recommendation that the UDA requirement remain in the ordinance. is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2682 Minutes of September 15, 2010 -3- is Chairman Wilmot commented that the Planning Commission would still be in the position to recommend to the Board of Supervisors regarding lattice requests anywhere within the County. Ms. Perkins replied yes; she said towers still have to go through the CUP (conditional use permit) process and this would be the venue the applicant would request the lattice -type tower. Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Board, along with the CUP. Commissioner Thomas believed the ordinance text should remain as it is and to amend the ordinance would be a mistake. He questioned one's ability to camouflage a lattice tower. Commissioner Oates agreed; he preferred that the text remain as it is currently written. Commissioner Oates did not believe [lattice] towers belong in the UDA. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Planning Commission's comments to the Board of Supervisors. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Crosen, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article I, Intent, Section 144 -1, Intent; Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, 144 -9 General Procedures; Article V Design Standards, 144 -23 Environmental Requirements; Floodplain Development; Wetlands; Article VI Plan Requirements, 144 -35 Preliminary Sketches, 144 -36 • Subdivision Design Plan Contents, 144 -37 Final Plats, 144 -39 Minor Rural Subdivisions; Article II Definitions, 144 -2 Definitions and Word Usage. This proposed amendment is a revision to include dam break inundation zones. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this subdivision text amendment is for compliance with the Code of Virginia regarding dam break inundation zones for State - regulated dams. She explained these are State Code changes that were adopted back in 2008 and are now being implemented within the County Code, as required. Ms. Perkins stated that with these new requirements, developers will be required to modify their projects or contribute payment for upgrades to dams when developing properties are within inundation zones. Furthermore, proposed developments within the mapped dam break inundation zones would have to be identified on subdivision design plans, sketch plans, and subdivision plats that the County would review. When the need for upgrades to an impounding structure or a dam is identified during the review process, the development would not be able to be approved by the County until the required engineering study, cost estimate, and payment for the upgrades are received. Ms. Perkins explained that all of this is determined by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) because the County would be required to send all of the documents to the DCR for comment. She noted that these proposed draft revisions to the County's subdivision ordinance are required by State Code to be in conformance with the State's revisions. Ms. Perkins added that these proposed revisions were discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their August meeting. She said the DRRS sent this item forward to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Thomas inquired if there were any existing developments in the County • within dam break inundation zones and who would be responsible for mapping those zones. Ms. Perkins Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2683 Minutes of September 15, 2010 said she was not aware of any developments in an inundation zone, because there were currently no • mapped dam break inundation zones available. She said as the DCR is making their inspections of dams, they are working with dam owners to complete the inundation areas and mapping; those maps will be forwarded to the localities to have them on file. Ms. Perkins explained that the regulation only comes into play after the DCR has mapped the area. She commented that the owner of the impounding structures will be required by DCR to map their inundation zone. Chairman Wilmot asked how many dams in Frederick County might possibly fall under this requirement and Ms. Perkins replied there were approximately 15. Mr. Eric Lawrence, Planning Director, remarked that Lake Holiday is currently going through this process and has completed their preliminary delineation zones. Mr. Lawrence stated that as far as this proposed ordinance, the County cannot deny the subdivision or zoning permit, but can inform the applicant they are in an inundation zone. Ms. Perkins added that for new developments proposed to be located in an inundation zone, if they are impacting the spillway as determined by the DCR, they would be required to work with the dam owner to either modify the dam or change their project. Commissioner Thomas asked if there was anything in the Code that would prevent Frederick County from strengthening its ordinance to prohibit development within inundation zones where the inundation is going to be so many feet deep; he believed this was a safety issue. He asked if there was a zone with a 30 -foot dam and a quarter mile downstream from the embankment there would be a ten -foot surge, could the County prohibit development within that surge area. He said the County could determine a particular height of a surge that would be fatal and prohibit any development within that type of a surge zone. Commissioner Thomas believed this would be prudent on the County's part. Mr. Lawrence agreed it would be prudent, but he did not think the County would be able to do that under State Law. Mr. Lawrence believed the dam owner carved a liability and the process is for any future home builders to communicate with the dam owner so both parties understand that if the developer builds a house, it will increase the dam owner's liability. Mr. Lawrence compared it with a communication exercise. He thought there would be some trouble prohibiting people from doing subdivisions and building houses, but the developer/builder needs to communicate with the dam owner and with the people downstream because it now affects the inundation zone and the dam owner will be responsible for destruction, if the dam fails. Chairman Wilmot asked the staff what the role of the developer was in this process. Ms. Perkins replied the role of the developer is when they make a submission to the County and if it is determined that the project is within the inundation zone as determined by DCR, and if a number of their houses will impact the dam owner in the inundation zone, the developer will be required to help pay for either dam upgrades, up to a certain percentage, or they have to change their project in order to not make the impact. If the developer does not proceed with either of the two options, then the County will not be allowed to approve the project, under State Code. Commissioner Thomas believed the County should address the liability issue further. He said if the County is going to allow developments downstream and knows there may be damage, the County is not being prudent if it doesn't require the dam owner to have liability insurance or some type of liability surety. Mr. Lawrence said he did not think the County would be able to enforce that. Mr. Lawrence said the County could inform the people downstream before construction, and get the • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2684 Minutes of September 15, 2010 -5- • communication going. Mr. Lawrence said at the same time, the state is doing inspections of the dams and requiring dams to be upgraded as necessary to avoid failure; he said Lake Holiday was the catalyst. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the County has any liability by approving the development; he questioned whether the County could be considered complacent or liable for anything. Mr. Lawrence said this is part of the proposed ordinance revision, so if someone is going to build in that area, the County will notify the dam owner before providing any permissions; and, in addition, the inundation zones will be placed on the plat. Commissioner Thomas did not think the proposed ordinance was strong enough. of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Planning Commission's comments to the Board (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Crosen, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. by a unanimous vote. • E Respectfully submitted, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2685 Minutes of September 15, 2010 Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary