PC_06-02-04_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 June 2, 2004.
PRESENT: Charles S. Del- Iaven, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; John H. Light,
Stonewall District Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; and Gene
E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison: Barbara Van Osten, Board of
Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11, Mark R. Cheran,
Planner I; David Beniamino, Planner 1; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
•
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Del -laven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 7, 2004
Upon motion made by Commissioner Fisher and seconded by Conunissioner'I'homas, the
minutes of April 7, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1304
-2-
COMMITTEE REPORTS
® Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 05/27/04
Commissioner Thomas reported that DRRS discussed possible changes to the ordinance
regarding drive -in lanes and they discussed whether conditions should be included with car washes locating
in a B2 Zoning District. Commissioner Thomas said that other topics of discussion for future DRRS
meetings will include hog farming, buffers, and flex tech.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS)
Commissioner Light reported that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
held ajoint work session to discuss and determine the direction of the Rural Areas Study.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #08 -04 of Virginia Edwards for a Cottage Occupation/ Photography Studio.
This property, zoned RP (Residential Performance), is located at 143 Darby Drive (Rt. 1524), in the
Ravenwing development, and is identified with P.I.N. 64G -2 -3 -151 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
0 Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner David Beniamino read the background information and review agency comments.
Planner Beniamino stated that the applicant has advised that the activity will be conducted in a room inside
the residence and that customers will be handled on an appointment -only basis. He said there were no
negative comments from any of the reviewing agencies and there will be no employees other than those who
reside on the premises. Planner Beniamino read the staffs list of recommended conditions for the permit.
Referring to Condition 43, which limited the numberofcustomers to ten per week, a member
of the Commission questioned how it would be possible for the staff to enforce limiting the number of
customers. There were also questions on how the staff arrived at the customer quota and if the Iimitation was
necessary. Staff replied that although the customer limitation was not enforceable, it offered a tool to
measure any increase in the intensity of the use. Staff noted that the number was determined through
conversations with the applicant.
Mrs. Virginia Edwards, the applicant, said that she was satisfied with the number of
customers specified within the conditions. To give the Planning Commission a perspective on the number
of clients she expects, Mrs. Edwards explained that while working out of her home in Loudoun County, she
had no more than 45 customers per year over the previous 16 years. She commented that her business is only
part-time and normally, she would go to the client's location. Mrs. Edwards was not interested in erecting
a sign.
n
U
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1305
- 3 -
A Planning Commissioner pointed out the request by the Winchester Regional Airport that
• their comments concerning airport noise be acknowledged by the owner in the approval process. Mrs.
Edwards said that she was aware of the airport's concerns and did not believe it would present any problems
for her; she said she used to live next to Dulles Airport.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Straub,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #08 -04 of Virginia Edwards for a Cottage Occupation/ Photography
Studio at 143 Darby Drive with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No signs associated with this conditional use permit will be allowed on the property.
3. No more than ten customers per week shall come to the residence in association with this conditional
use permit.
4. Any expansion or modification of the facilities will require a new conditional use permit
(Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
r� L
Conditional Use Permit #09 -04 of James A. Bayliss and Barbara V. Bayliss for a Cottage Occupation/
Real Estate Brokerage. This property is located at 2680 Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50 West) and is
identified with P.I.N. 52 -A -56 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Mark R. Cheran read the background information and staled there were no adverse
comments received from any ofthe reviewing agencies. Planner Cheran stated that the proposed application
was in response to a zoning complaint that the staff received. He said the applicant, Mr. Bayliss, reported
to staff that the proposed use would occur at his residence; there will be no large -scale real estate sales
activity; the customer base is managed over the telephone and computer; and, there will be no employees
associated with the proposed use, other than those residing in the dwelling. Planner Cheran stated that based
on the limited scale ofthe proposed use and an evaluation ofthe property, it appears the use would not have
a significant impact on the adjoining properties.
A member ofthe Commission asked about the nature of the complaint received by the staff.
Mr. Cheran explained thatduring the review of Mr. Bayliss's business license reviewform, it was determined
that the applicant was not in compliance for a cottage occupation. In addition, a field check of the site
indicated the applicant had an illegal sign.
I�
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1306
-4-
Mr. James A. Bayliss, the applicant, explained that this will be a family business, primarily
J ust himself and his wife. Mr. Bayliss said that after some reflection, he wondered whether it would be
® possible to have the option of one temporary administrative employee and one licensed employee, if by
chance an illness would happen to either himself or his wife.
Members of the Commission explained to Mr. Bayliss that the requirement for the sign size
was two -feet by two -feet, not four -feet by four -feet. Mr. Bayliss said that he would modify the size of his
existing sign to meet those requirements. Commissioners also asked Mr. Bayliss if lie was comfortable with
the condition which limited the number of customers to five at any one time on the site. Mr. Bayliss believed
that limiting the number of customers to five would be adequate and he was comfortable with that condition.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
The Planning Commission believed the request for the two temporary employees would not have an adverse
affect on the neighborhood; therefore, it was added as a fifth condition to those conditions recommended by
the staff.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Straub,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 909 -04 of James A. Bayliss and Barbara V. Bayliss for a Cottage
Occupation/ Real Estate Brokerage at 2680 Northwestern Pike with the following five conditions:
I. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than five customers at any one time on site.
3. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements: and shall not
exceed four square feet in size.
4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit.
5. Up to two temporary employees allowed.
(Please note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Conditional Use Permit #10 -04 of Charles D. Brown for a Motel/ Bed and Breakfast at 161 McCarty
Lane (Rt. 50 East). This property is identified with P.I.N. 65 -3 -8 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Mark R. Cheran provided the background information and stated that the proposed
application is in response to a zoning complaint that staff received. Planner Cheran stated that the applicant
was cited for operating a motel/ bed and breakfast use without an approved conditional use pennit. He said
the applicant's proposed use will take place on five acres of land with the nearest adjacent residence being
50 feet from the proposed use. The applicant proposes to have outdoor events at this site, such as weddings
U
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1307
-5-
and other outdoor events, consisting of no more than 25 people at any one event. Planner Cheran said that
staff would require a site plan and a new conditional use permit, if events exceed 25 people at any one event.
® He added there will be no employees associated with the proposed use, other than those persons residing in
the dwelling. He further added that based on the limited scale of the proposed use and evaluation of the
property, it appears the use would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties.
Mr. Charles D. Brown, the applicant, stated that they are starting their tenth year in business.
Mr. Brown said he was one of the first in the county to be approved for a bed and breakfast and, at that time,
all that was required was a business license and a health permit. He said the Health Department visits
annually and their water is tested.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and two adjoining property owners came
forward to speak regarding the motel/ bed and breakfast.
Mr. Joseph Alger, the adjoining property owner to the west, said that initially, he did not
object to the bed and breakfast; but recently it has grown into a sizable business and commercial enterprises
are prohibited by the deed covenants to the properties in this area. Mr. Alger expressed concerns about
impacts of traffic on the gravel road and possible impacts to the groundwater and septic system. He said that
he has gotten the impression from the applicant that lie can not conduct normal, outside maintenance work
in his yard at his own time and discretion.
Mr. Donald Pearson, an adjoining property owner to the south, had no issues with the bed
and breakfast operation and was supportive of the permit approval.
A member of the Commission raised a concern about the amount of traffic associated with
—� the bed and breakfast. No other outstanding issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to
approve the conditional use permit with conditions. This motion passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #10 -04 of Charles D. Brown for a Motel/ Bed and Breakfast at 161 McCarty Lane,
with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than five overnight guests allowed on any given day.
3. No more than 25 people per any one event under this conditional use permit.
4. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements; and shall not
exceed four square feet in size.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1308
® 5. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of a new Conditional Use Permit with a site
plan.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE) Fisher, Kriz. Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub
NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour
(Please note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning 06 -04 of Rutherford, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc., to rezone 13.4 acres
from the RA (Rural Areas); B2 (Business General); B3 (Industrial Transition); and M1 (Light
Industrial) Districts to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. Thesubject
acreage is located within the northwest quadrant of the Interstate 81 interchange area, which is north
and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North), and east and adjacent to Interstate 81, and is
identified by Property Identification Number(s)43-A-96,43-A-97,43-A-98,43-A-99,43-A-100,43-A-
101, and 43 -A -1 l l in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
• Action - Recommended Approval
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, explained that approximately two years ago, a rezoning
was approved for Rutherford, LLC on property consisting of about 150 acres. He said that recently, the
applicant was able to acquire an adjoining 0.75 -acre parcel which they are interested incorporating within
their B2 zoning. When the applicant conducted a market analysis, however, they realized that shifting some
of the zoning district boundaries would enhance the property's marketability. Director Lawrence said that
the traffic analysis is not impacted, nothing that was considered two years ago at the original rezoning is
impacted, and the proffer submitted by the applicant is identical to what submitted two years ago, in order
to provide consistency.
Commission members raised the issue ofwhetherthe applicant's public improvements plan
would still accommodate the project Nvith the 20% additional trips per day generated as a result of the
increase in B I and B2 uses and the decrease in M 1 uses. It was pointed out that the change in the traffic mix
could alter the amount of stacking lanes needed and the amount of back -up expected entering and exiting 1 -81
—°� during peak hours.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the applicant's representative, stated that
their analysis concluded that the slight change in the uses for the property did not compromise the integrity
of the public improvements plan that was engineered from the original proffers. The applicant stated that
based on the new traffic mix, VDOT was comfortable that the original traffic proffers would adequately
mitigate the additional traffic.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1309
-7-
VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, confirmed that cons ideringthe reconfiguration of
_® the new traffic mix and increased vehicle trips per day, in addition to the existing traffic, VDOT was
comfortable there would be sufficient stacking and turn lanes to accommodate the numbers. In addition, Mr.
Ingrain mentioned the two entrances, one consisting of a continuous right and the other a full intersection,
along with the road layout, all of which, he believed, would contribute to the proper Flow of traffic.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommended approval of Rezoning 406 -04 of Rutherford, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc.,
to rezone 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Areas); B2 (Business General); B3 (Industrial Transition); and M 1
(Light Industrial) Districts to the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts.
(Please note: Commissioners Triplett and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan #03 -04 for Fieldstone Subdivision, submitted by Greenway Engineering,
for up to 63 single - family detached urban homes and 225 townhouses. The property is located south
of Valley Mill Road (Route 659), to the east of Carlisle Heights Subdivision, and is identified with
Property Identification Number 55 -A -181, in the Red Bud District.
Action - Recommended Approval of the Master Development Plan and
Recommended Approval of the Lot Access Waiver
PlannerJerenry F. Camp stated that the preliminary master development plan (MDP) revision
for Fieldstone Subdivision was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission at their meeting of
April 7, 2004, primarily based on the MDP' sinsufficienttransportationplanning. The Planning Commission
also denied a waiver request during this meeting which would have allowed individual lots to be in excess
of 500 feet from a state - maintained road. Planner Camp stated that on May 12, 2004, the Board of
Supervisors voted to send the Fieldstone Subdivision MDP revision back to the Planning Commission; the
Board made this decision in order to give the applicant another opportunity to address the density and
transportation concerns the Planning Commission had raised during their review on April 7, 2004.
Planner Cantp continued, stating that the applicant has chosen not to extend the proposed
state road to the property line to allow for possible future development; nor has the applicant made any other
changestothe plan sincethe PlanningCommission recommended denialon April 7, 2004. Heexplained that
the failure to extend Nassau Drive to the eastern property line may impact the development potential of the
properties to the east, and may not provide for an improved future transportation network to serve this area
of Frederick County as well. Planner Camp said the original Fieldstone MDP was approved in 1988, prior
to the adoption of the Eastern Road Plan; this is why previous revisions to the Fieldstone Subdivision did
not require
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1310
the development to extend the road to the eastern property line. He said that both the 1996 and 2002
® revisions proposed a reduction in the total number of residential units. Planner Camp pointed out that the
proposed revision under consideration this evening is an increase of 135 units, consisting ofa change from
single- family detached dwellings to townhouses, and the revision has changed the internal public road
network to a private road network. He said the staff believes the changes will generate additional impacts
to Frederick County residents and because of these impacts, the staff looks to the developer to provide basic
transportation improvements.
Several representatives for the applicant, Arcadia Building Company, were available to
address the various issues that had previously been raised at the Commission's April 7, 2004 meeting. Those
representatives included Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenvay Engineering, the design engineers for the
project; Mr. John Callow, Vice President with Patton, Harris, & Rust, the transportation engineers; and Mr.
Doug Flemming, legal counsel. It was the representatives' opinion that the MDP was well within the
required density. Specifically, it was noted that the revision involved only Section 2 by changing the 90
single - family units to 225 townhouses; the staff report indicated that 5.5 units per acre was the allowable
density for this project. The applicant's representatives stated that with the change in their MDP, including
the 63 single- family dwelling units in Section I, they have 288 total units, which is 230 units less than what
is permitted by the ordinance.
Regarding the requested waiver, the applicant's representatives stated that the Planning
Commission has granted such waivers in the past for similar subdivisions, if satisfactory circulation pattern
had been provided. The circulation pattern proposed was described; they noted that if the waiver was not
approved, they would simply extend the state road portion to meet the 500 -foot requirement.
® The applicant's representatives next addressed the issue ofthe overall transportation network
and the issue of Nassau Drive not connecting to the east. The applicant's representatives noted that the
Channing Drive construction, which is a key component of the Eastern Road Plan, had been accomplished
through the Fieldstone subdivision from Valley Mill Road to the northern property limits. They believed the
developers have done their part to implement the Comprehensive Policy Plan by constructing their portion
of Charming Drive and by contributing $20,000 towards the traffic signal at the Greenwood Road/ Valley
Mill Road intersection, and by entering into a signalization agreement with VDOTatChanning Drive. Itwas
noted by the representatives that the Comprehensive Plan does not call fornor promote an east -west collector
road through the Fieldstone community. In addition, it was their opinion that the subdivision ordinance did
not mandate a road connection to the adjoining Adams property.
In addition, there seemed to be a discrepancy from the applicant's point of view as to why
the Board of Supervisors was sending the MDP back to the Planning Commission. The applicant's
representatives believed the Board of Supervisors' motion was, "...to direct the Planning Commission to
resolve the density issues and bring back the MDP to the Board's first meeting in June." The applicant
believed this was not accurately represented in the staffs report.
Members of the Planning Commission were of the opinion that VDOT had requested a
revised traffic impact analysis because of the number of trips per day had doubled with the revision of the
townhouses in Section 2. However, after further discussion, it was determined that a revised traffic analysis
was not conducted; the applicant's representatives noted that when the developer came forward with their
contribution for the traffic signal, there was no further discussion from VDOT regarding the need for
additional revisions
0
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1311
m
to the traffic study. Other transportation issues raised involved the Commission's desire for inter - parcel
® connectors and their dislike of funneling traffic from a four -lane road down to a one -lane bridge. Some of
the Commissioners anticipated major future transportation problems.
Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and four citizens who live in the vicinity
of this development spoke, as follows:
Mr. Bob Carter, a resident on Valley Mill Road, came forward to speak about his concerns
regarding traffic on Valley Mill Road. Mr. Carter did not believe the developers were doing their part in the
way of contributing money towards road improvements.
Mr. Tim Stafford, area resident, offered to employ, at his own expense, an outside traffic
engineer to review and comment on the transportation issues in order to get another point of view. Mr.
Stafford said that he did not understand how Fieldstone could be developed without a storm water
management system. He expressed concern that the water runoff from the clear -cut slopes along the
Charming Drive construction route flowed directly into Abrams Creek. He said that each time it rains, he
loses another 50 -year old tree on his farm because of impervious areas that are not being managed. Mr.
Stafford believed that developers coming into Frederick County from other areas should be required to do
a greater amount of improvements before they are granted approval for their projects. He believed that the
Frederick County taxpayers will be left to maintain and manage public facilities Tong after the developers
have gone.
Mr. Gary Adams, the executor of the adjacent Goldies, LLC tract, wanted to go on record
to state that this property is currently under contract for development with a major contractor out of the
Washington, D.C. area. Mr. Adams said that at one time, when Mr. George Glaize owned the property before
• Arcadia bought it, he had a master development plan that showed two connector roads going into Goldies,
LLC.
Mr. Richard Racey, resident across from Charming Drive, agreed with all of the other
comments that were made. Additionally, Mr. Racey raised concerns about the impacts to schools, roads, and
the environment. He also questioned the need for these townhouses.
Because the waiver associated with this request had been recommended for denial at the
Commission's April 7, 2004 meeting, members of the Commission were of the opinion that the master plan
was not in compliance with the subdivision ordinance. Commissioners believed the master plan should not
be approved without re- addressing the waiver request. Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, legal counsel for the
Commission, believed that both issues could be considered together. Mr. Ambrogi also advised that the
master plan should be approved, if all ordinance requirements were met.
-. The Planning Commission expressed theirconcern about tile cumulative affect ofthe traffic
impacts from previously- approved developments in this area. Commission members stated that it was
difficult to predict the cumulative traffic impact when the densities of proposed developments continue to
change.
Upon motion made by Connnissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
U]
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1312
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
a lot access distance waiver, allowing residences on private drives up to 624 feet from a public road, and also
recommends approval of MDP 403 -04 Fieldstone subdivision. The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Thomas, Kriz, Fisher
NO: Straub, GOChenonr, De Haven, Rosenberry
(Commissioners Triplett and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
Master Development Plan #06 -04 of Winchester Medical Center ❑, submitted by G. W. Clifford &
Associates, for retail, commercial and medical support use on approximately 102 acres, zoned B2
(Business General) and MS (Medical Support) Districts. The property is located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of Route 37 and Route 50 West, and is identified with Property Identification
Number 53 -A -68, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp reported the background information for the Commission. He
stated that the parcel is entirely within the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and
Water Service Area), thereare no known environmental restraints the proposed internal private road network
will be designed to meet state road standards as required by the zoning ordinance; and, a waiver by the Board
of Supervisors will be required to allow individual lots to access private roads. lie noted that Botanical
Boulevard, the proffered major collector road, is the only proposed public road into the development.
Planner Camp next read the list of the applicant's proffers, mostofwhich focused on the mitigation oftraffic.
Members of the Commission noted that VDO'f had raised a number of issues and they
questioned whether those issues had been resolved. Planner Camp replied that V DOT was comfortable with
the plan and he believed the issues identified would not prohibit the plan from proceeding forward. In
addition, the Commission raised questions concerning the timing ofdevelopmcnt, the possibil ity ofa western
access to the Route 37 Interchange, and the construction of Echo Lane.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, a division of Patton, Harris,
and Rust, the design engineers for this project, was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Maddox gave a
presentation of the master plan to the Commission. He assured the Commission that the road plan will be
in place as part of the first use established within the B2 portion of development.
It was determined that the Planning Commission did not need to provide a formal
recommendation on the requested lot access waiver because the granting of the waiver required only Board
of Supervisors' action.
K J
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1313
Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Coin inission does hereby unanimously recommend
that administrative approval be authorized for the Winchester Medical Center II Master Development Plan
406 -04, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, for retail, commercial, and medical support use on
approximately 102 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) and MS (Medical Support) Districts.
(Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Master Development Plan #07 -04 of the WWW Property (Round Hill Crossing), submitted by G. W.
Clifford & Associates, Inc. for retail and commercial uses on 23 acres, zoned B2 (Business General)
District. The property is located north and adjacent to Route 50 West, approximately 1,700 feet west
of Rt. 37, and is identified with P.LN.s 52 -A -B and 53 -A -79 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp gave the background information and spoke about the phasing of
the major collector road. He pointed out that the proffer statement indicates that the timing and phasing of
Petticoat Gap Lane will be established during the MDP process. Planner Camp said that upon consideration
of the amount of traffic expected during Phase I of the development, which is anticipated lobe large retail,
staff believed it was crucial to establish the connection with the WMC (Winchester Medical Center) site
during Phase 1. He said that this was in conflict with the applicant's proposal to construct Petticoat Gap
Lane during Phase 2 of the development. He commented that not constructing the road until Phase 2 fails
to provide connection until after the majority of traffic impacts are realized. Planner Camp stated that a
connection with the WMC during Phase 1 will reduce the impact of traffic on Northwestern Pike (Rt SOW),
by allowing vehicles to travel between commercial developments rather than having to get back onto the
arterial road.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., a division of Patton,
Harris, & Rust, the project design engineers, was present to represent the applicant Mr. Maddox stated that
there was a significant amount of transportation improvements planned for Phase I on this project; he
proceeded to describe those for the Commission. Commission members had questions concerning how the
phasing of Petticoat Gap Lane could be accomplished. Mr. Maddox agreed to construct two of the proffered
four lanes of Petticoat Gap Lane during Phase I construction, so long as Botanical Boulevard on the WMC
11 property is constructed, and to leave the remaining two lanes until Phase 2.
Mr. Maddox said that the applicant is requesting a waiver to the section of the Frederick
County Subdivision Ordinance which requires all lots to have direct access to a public street or right -of -way.
This waiver would allow individual commercial lots to be subdivided with access to the proposed private
internal circulation road, referred to as Little North Mount Road on the preliminary MDP. Staff pointed out
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1314
-12-
® that the Board of Supervisors could grant the lot access waiver; therefore, a formal recommendation from
the Planning Commission was not necessary.
Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
A member of the Commission believed that the types of businesses proposed in this MDP
were in direct conflict with what is being envisioned for the community centers promoted by the Rural Areas
Study. Other members of the Commission believed the MDP was appropriate and was consistent with the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that administrative approval be authorized for the W W W Property (Round H i l l Crossing), Master
Development Plan 907 -04 submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates. Inc, for retail and commercial uses
on 23 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) District.
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE) Rosenberry, Fisher, Kriz, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub
NO : Gochenour
® (Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PIPESTEM
LOTS; SPECIFICALLY, RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A DISPROPORTIONATELY
NARROW STRIP OF LAND USED FOR ACCESS.
County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Development Review & Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) evaluated a request to allow pipestem Tots as an alternative lot design in Frederick
County. He reported the DRRS did not support allowing an unlimited number of pipestem lots per
development, nor did they support pipestems on shared driveways and lots; the DRRS believed that pipestem
lots with shared driveways would create problems between property owners. Mr. Cheran said that the DRRS
recommended a proposed ordinance amendment for pipestem lots which incorporated several design
standards. He said the key design standards included limiting the total number of pipestem lots in a
development to no more than 5% of all lots, and restricting all pipestem lots except those with single -lot
driveways.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1315
-13-
®
Planner-Cheran continued, stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the amendment at a public hearing on February 4, 2004. However, at the Board of Supervisors public
hearing on February 25, 2004, the Board defeated the proposed amendment by a majority vote and referred
the amendment back to the Planning Commission for further study. Planner Cheran said that specifically,
the Board had concerns about Fire and Rescue accessibility and, in addition, they were concerned about
pipestems coming off of cul -de -sacs. Planner Cheran said that he contacted Fire and Rescue and they were
comfortable with the length of the pipestems described in the proposed amendment. Regarding pipestems
off cul -de -sacs, Planner Cheran said that as long as the developer was meeting the design standards of the
ordinance, he did not believe this situation would present a problem.
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering had initiated this ordinance amendment request
for the Commission's and Board's consideration. Mr. Smith and his staff used a pictorial presentation to
illustrate the various potential scenarios where a pipestem lot would be utilized. lie noted that the request
for pipestems would only occur in developments within the UDA (Urban Development Area). He explained
that these small areas within a proposed development would not be considered good, quality open space;
therefore, they believed the space could be better utilized with a dwelling unit.
A member of the Commission inquired if the pipestem drive would be considered a private
driveway and included as part of the residence. Mr. Smith replied that it would and is fee simple to the lot.
Commission members commented that from a marketing perspective, lots with pipestems
may be considered as a more desirable lot; they said the length of the driveway actually created the "sense"
of a larger lot. Greenway representatives agreed and noted that lots with long driveways are considered to
be premium lots. Commissioners pointed out that long, unpaved driveways are currently being utilized in
the rural areas with no regulations.
Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Mr. Gary Dove, said that the Board turned down the
ordinance amendment by a six -to -one vote. Mr. Dove said he believed the pictorial presentation by
Greenway should be done for the Board. He added that the Board considered pipestem lots to be undesirable
lots, however, to the contrary, they are considered by home buyers to be premium lots. Mr. Dove believed
this was a good use of the land; he said he voted in favor of it and would like to see it sent back to the Board.
Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. stated that he was in support
of the proposed amendment; he believed it would help the UDA effort and is a better utilization of land.
The Planning Commission believed the recommendations ofthe DRRS were sound and were
in favor of sending the amendment back to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Fisher,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously endorses the ordinance
amendment for pipestem lots in the UDA with design standards as recommended by the DRRS and does
hereby forward the amendment to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1316
14-
DISCUSSION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF LISTING USES BY STANDARD
INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODES IN THE B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) ZONING
DISTRICT.
County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended the exclusion ofStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) uses from the
B2 (Business General) Zoning District at their meeting on April 29, 2004. The DRRS believed these SIC
uses may not be appropriate, nor meet the intent of the B2 Zoning District, and recommended that they be
added to the appropriate zoning districts.
The Planning Commission believed the amendment would assist in clarification of the code
and was appropriate as recommended by the DRRS.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the
Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the adoption ofthe ordinanceamendmentto exclude uses listed
by Standard Industrial Classification Codes in the B2 (Business General) Zoning Districtand to include these
uses within their appropriate zoning districts in the code, as recommended by the DRRS. This proposed
amendment is to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for discussion.
DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION
144 -17L, CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION, TO AMEND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE
® REQUIREMENT FROM 12,000 SQUARE FEET TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
County Planner Mark R. Cheran stated that the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended a change to Section 144 -171-, Curbs and Gutters, of the Subdivision
Ordinance at their meeting of May 17, 2004. Planner Cheran said that a potential discrepancy in the
language regarding residential curb and gutter requirements was identified. The suggested text amendment
would clarify that residential developments with lot sizes less than 15,000 square feet would require curb
and gutter. Planner Cheran noted that this is not a new requirement, but merely a clarification point.
County Zoning Administrator Patrick T. Davenport explained that the zoning ordinance has
a lot size category of 12,000 square feet and up, while the subdivision ordinance specifies 12,000 square feet
or less. Zoning Administrator Davenport said that staff was seeking to clarify the requirement for curb and
gutter on lots between 12,000 and 15,000 square feet. He stated that this amendment will clarify that all lots
less than 15,000 square feet will be required to have curb and gutter.
Commissioner Thomas recalled that when the curb and gutter requirements were initially
placed within the ordinance, the intent at that time was specifically for lots 15,000 square feet and under.
The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate as presented by the
DRRS.
0
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1317
15-
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the
Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the adoption of the subdivision ordinance amendment to
® Section
144 -17L, Curb and Gutter Construction, to amend the square footage requirement from 12,000 square feet
to 15,000 square feet, as recommended by the DRRS, and sends this amendment forward to the Board of
Supervisors for discussion.
OTHER
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS
Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence raised the issue of the master development plan process
for discussion. Director Lawrence inquired whether the Planning Commission would prefer to continue to
review master development plans at a public meeting or if they would prefer to have them be reviewed and
approved administratively. lie said that historically, the Planning Commission has given citizens the
opportunityto comment during a public meeting format, however, the Board of Supervisors does not provide
that opportunity because a master development plan is considered to be an administrative review process.
Planning Commissioners believed the public meetings with citizen comments have provided
considerable beneficial information and they were in favor of continuing in that same format. However, they
also sought to have a better understanding of what the Commission can or can not do, based on the guidance
of their legal counsel. A suggestion was made to have additional work sessions to discuss the issues
® pertaining to various items on agendas
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by
a unanimous vote at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
S. Del-laven. Jr.. Chai
ErikiR,.Ldwrence, Secretary
0
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of June 2, 2004 Page 1318