Loading...
PC_05-16-12_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES ® OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on May 16, 2012. 1 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 f Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; Ross P. Spicer. Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. i ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin W. Kenney, Gainesboro District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy I Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director - Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; 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 agenda for this evening's meeting as presented) This motion was seconded by Commissioner Madagan and unanimously passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Commission — 5/11/12 Mtg. Commissioner Madagan reported the EDC provides funding to the Lord Fairfax Small Business Development Center as a part of the EDC's initiative to promote economic development. The Director of the SBDC, Bill Sirbaugh, presented the SBDC's annual report at the EDC's meeting on May 11. Commissioner Madagan said Mr. Sirbaugh reported that this year's client activity is on par with previous years, with about 202 contacts. Mr. Sirbaugh had reported that during 2011, there was a balance of assistance and inquiries between those starting a business and those already in business. Mr. Sirbaugh provided statistics showing that for the minimal amount of funding the EDC provides, they are getting about aten -fold direct return on their funding. In other business, the EDC staff provided an update on the VIP tours conducted in April. Staff reported there were 76 attendees; 50% of those were Frederick County Planning Commission ! Page 2857 Minutes of May 16, 2012 i is 0 first time attendees; everyone was satisfied; and everyone said they would recommend the tour to a colleague. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 5/15/12 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB considered an historic property designation plaque application for the White Hall United Methodist Church. He said the HRAB recommended approval and sent the plaque application forward to the Board of Supervisors for their June 13, 2012 meeting. Comprehensive Plans & Proerams Committee (CPPC) — 5/14/12 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the CPPC held their election of offs Christopher M. Mohn was elected Chairman and he will remain as the Vice Chairn Oates said the CPPC discussed mixed -use community centers. He said the working more meeting before the entire group meets in June to consider all the ideas. Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS) Committee Chairman Wilmot announced that on March 7, 2012, the Planning C a new study group called, the Business Development Advancement Study (BDAS) I the BDAS Committee is tasked with undertaking an evaluation of how the County's is implemented through business development, and to offer recommendations on lu further advance business development in our area. Chairman Wilmot noted that tl held its first meeting on March 29, 2012. CITIZEN COMMENTS He said Mr. Commissioner will hold one amission appointed immittee. She said omprehensive Plan the County might BDAS Committee Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. Frederick County Planning Minutes of May 16, 2012 Page -3- PUBLIC HEARING ® Conditional Use Permit 902 -12 for Pippin Enterprises, LLC for a Commercial Outdoor Recreation Use for the purpose of expanding Conditional Use Permit #05 -98, Appleland Sports Center, which is adjoined with the Appleland Golf Course, at 4506 Valley Pike (Route 11). These properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 74 -A -74, 74 -A -75, 75 -A -27, and 75 -A -27A in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported permit application is for an expansion of an approved commercial outdoor recreation Appleland Golf Course (CUP #05 -98), to allow the extension of a nine -hole golf explained that the proposed conditional use pennit (CUP) is to expand the golf cou four properties. He said the existing Appleland Sports Center has an approved s provide for parking for the proposed expansion. He said the proposed CUP shall util approved commercial entrance from Route 11. No other entrances will be utilize Route 649. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions for the Commission find this expansion to be appropriate. Commissioner Thomas raised a question about the accessory allowed with the permitted recreational uses under CUP #05 -98. He was concerned those retail sales could be with the language used in the staff report and if the everything from go -carts and golf clubs to clothing and gasoline. this conditional use use, specifically the ;nurse. Mr. Cheran rse and will include it plan, which will ze only the existing, dI from Route I I or permit- should the use, which was it how extensive licant could sell ® Mr. Ralph Gregory, the applicant and property owner, said the reason for the revised permit is because the land they want to expand the golf course onto is not a part of Appleland, but is a separate track of land. Mr. Gregory explained they were only using a small portion of the entire property; he said the remainder of the property is in active farming. i 11 Chairman Wilmot asked how many holes are planned for the golf course. Mr. Gregory said there are nine holes at present and they plan to have a 12- hole course when they aIre finished with the project. Mr. Gregory said they are adding three "Par Four" holes to the course, making this an "executive golf course." Chairman Wilmot asked for clarification on the comments from the Health Department. Mr. Cheran replied that the Health Department had no objections as long as only three holes were added to the existing nine -hole golf course and there would be no additional structures built or additional wells drilled. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, added that if the applicant wants to expand his golf course beyond 12 holes, the county would need to have a new review by the Health Department to make sure the agency is satisfied. Commissioner Thomas raised the concern that language within the staff report refers to a Par Three Golf Course; however, Mr. Gregory is stating that he wants to have Par Four holes. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the language needs to be revised so that the applicant doesn't run into difficulties in the future because of a possible misinterpretation. Mr. Cheran said that he would revise the language in the report. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2859 Minutes of May 16, 2012 E • MIN Commissioner Oates commented that the par of the ranges is not included within the conditions. Commissioner Oates pointed out that this area is served by the Sanitation Authority and if Mr. Gregory decides to add more than 12 holes, he could acquire public water and sewer and not use the drainfield. Commissioner Oates said Mr. Gregory has the ability to expand, if he desires. i Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone wishing to speak either in favor or opposition to the CUP. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval with the conditions recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crosen and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #02 -12 for Pippin Enterprises, L Outdoor Recreation Use for the purpose of expanding the Appleland Golf Course at 4506 Valley Pike (Route 11), with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. No additional entrances permitted onto Route 11 from this site. 3. Any expansion of current facilities approved via the current site plan, will 4. Hours of operation shall not exceed 11:00 p.m. 5. No additional signage allowed. 6. Lighting must be directed away from Route I 1 and adjoining properties. Noise shall be controlled so as not to impact adjoining properties; sound line shall not exceed 75dba (A scale). 8. Approval of CUP #02 -12 will null and void CUP 405 -98. 9. Any expansion of use will require a new CUP. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2012 eby unanimously for a Commercial P #05 -98), located a new site plan. i levels from the property Page 2860 -5- Draft Update of the 2012 -2013 Frederick County Primary & Interstate Road Improv_e_ment Plans • The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Planning Commission of Frederick County, in accordance with Section 33.1 -70.01 of the Code of Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Six Year Plan for Secondary Roads for�Fiseal Year 2013. All projects in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for fed Iera[ funds will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds. Action — Recommended Approval Deputy Planning Director for Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported this is the County's annual process to update the secondary, interstate, and primary road improvement plans. Mr. Bishop said the key for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is the secondary plan; lie said the interstate and primary plans are for the county's own purposes and V DOT's education. Mr. Bishop presented the major road improvement projects for 2012/2013 and the number one project continues to be Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and will remain! as the number one project until completion. He noted that it is funded and moving forward. He said the second project is Red Bud Road (Rt. 661), which was elevated to the next highest priority by the Board of Supervisors prior to this plan being adopted by the Board last year. Mr. Bishop said there is partial funding allocated for beginning design. Moving to the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop noted only one funded project, Woodside Road (Rt. 671), which is funded through a bond held by Titan Concrete. He .noted there are no state dollars on hardsurface road improvements this year. Regarding the more significant Unscheduled Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop stated this list has grown this year to 27 projects with the addition of Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608). He pointed out that projects 1 -3 do not have a rating because they were formally on the Scheduled List and dropped back down to the Unscheduled List due to de- allocations on the part of VDOT. He said the reason these projects still appear at the top of this list was basically the guidance received in the past couple years from the Board and Commission. Specifically, since they had reached "scheduled" status and were de- allocated, it was the right thing to do to keep them in the top status so that when funds do become available, they would be the first to receive the funding. He noted the same holds true for the projects at the bottom of the list: Glaize Orchard Road (Rt. 682), Light Road (Rt. 685), Cattail Road (Rt. 731), and Hunting Ridge Road (Rt. 608). He said these projects had been added since the last time funds were available to do projects, so they are not ranked. He noted the reason they have not been re- ranked is because there has been no money to fund them. Frederick County Plannir Minutes of May 16, 2012 Page 2601 Moving on to the Interstate Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop reported this plan has ® not changed since last year. He said it continues to highlight the need for the relocation of Exit 307, improvements to Exit 310, and variable widening throughout the corridor. Mr. Bishop stated that Exit 310 did receive in excess of $30 million in funding from the governor last year. He said the process is moving forward and the county has recently finalized an agreement that includes Frederick County, Crosspointe Development, and VDOT, to get the project moving forward. The items in that agreement deal with road improvements that have to be done within Crosspointe in order to actually move forward with Exit 310. The agreement has recently been executed and, therefore, the project continues to be under design and should be moving forward somewhat expediently. Regarding the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said th I need for park and ride lots continues to be highlighted, although the county is not solely looking at Route i7 for park and ride lots. Additionally, Route 37 continues to be the top priority, with the top phase of Route 37 continuing to be Exit 310 over to Route 522. He noted that segment continues to be the most important section of the road, even though the entire road is needed. Route 277 is still shown as a priority, as well as the South Frederick Parkway, Item Number 4, which is associated with the Exit 307 relocation, if and when it should take place. Mr. Bishop noted Route 277 was the other project that received significant funding last year through the governor's office and it is currently in the design stage. Mr. Bishop reported that the Transportation Committee reviewed these items at their meeting on April 23, 2012, and recommended approval. He said the staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Oates referred to the Woodside Road (Rt. 671) project on the Hardsurface Road Improvement list and lie recalled this project was to be funded through a proffer from a rezoning • from a few years ago. Commissioner Oates believed a motion on this road plan (from the Planning Commission to the Board should include a recommendation to enable that proffer so the project could be started. Mr. Bishop replied this was Titan Concrete's proffer and was for them to improve the roadway from their entrance out to Route I 1 and it is backed by a $100,000 bond. He said if that bond were pulled today, the funds would not be sufficient to complete that improvement because it has been undone for so long. Mr. Bishop said there have been numerous meetings over the years with Mr. Lawson, a representative for Titan Concrete, Board Supervisor, Chuck DeHaven, and VDOT. He said to this point, the decision has not been made to pull the bond; however, that remains to be an outstanding obligation. • Commissioner Triplett inquired about the Warm Springs Road project. Mr. Bishop did not foresee any hope of getting the project done, due to the lack of funding. j Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak concerning any of the projects on the Update to the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval of the Update of the Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans with the additional recommendation that the one project on the Hardsurface Road Improvement list, Woodside Road (Rt. 671), be pursued and completed within the next year. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. Frederick County Planning Minutes of May 16, 2012 Page • is -7- BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Draft Update of the 2012 -2013 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. The priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.) Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan — This plan encompa: County that is generally east of the City of Winchester and Interstate 81 to the and from Redbud Run in the north to the Opequon Creek in the south. The maps and a narrative text that covers the following areas: Urban Are Development; Business Development; Transportation; and Natural Resources, and Public Facilities. This plan is an update to Appendix I of the 2030 Compreh Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, a component of the 21 Plan. Action — Recommended Approval ; the area of the irke County line in contains four and Residential toric Resources, ;ive Plan and the Comprehensive Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission on this plan to go forward to the Board of Supervisors in June. Mr. Ruddy reported this plan involved a major public participation effort and included a collaborative effort between local citizens, business owners, residents, the planning staff, the Planning Commission, and members of the Board of Supervisors. He said ultimately, implementation of the plan itself will fall to the individual property owners. Mr. Ruddy said this was a good public participation effort and covers four main components: I urban areas and residential development; business development; transportation; and natural resources, historic resources, and public facilities. He noted that the importance of the four components is that they align directly with the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy next talked about the maps included with this plan. The first map identified land use, which covers residential land uses, predominantly with a higher density than has previously occurred within the county's urban development area, and it provides focal points within the urban areas. Three areas that have been identified as future urban centers include: the Crosspointe area; the Greenwood Urban Center; and the Parkins Mill Urban Center and Neighborhood Village. He next talked about the business development components, which included the continued recognition of the interstate and highway commercial areas on Route 7, Route 50, and Route 522; Warrior Drive and areas adjacent which could provide future employment opportunities with good commercial locations. Mr. Ruddy also spoke about the Parkins Mill Economic Development Area, a new area of land use from a business development perspective, located just south and east of future Route 37. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2863 Minutes of May 16, 2012 ff:D Mr. Ruddy said the plan not only addresses land use, but also addresses transportation. He said the plan includes a map which lays, out the street infrastructure network needed to support this plan. Not only does the plan include streets, but it also identifies a variety of trail connections. Many of the trail connections coincide with existing roads and some, such as the Abrams Creek Trail, provide new connections for recreational purposes. He said from a transportation perspective, it continues to reinforce access management, the complete street concepts endorsed in the Comprehensive Plan, corridor design elements, and other key areas, such as in front of the Millbrook High School, adjacent to Shenandoah University, and the transportation within the designated urban centers. Mr. Ruddy said the final map includes the historical and natu'ral resources and public facilities. Mr. Ruddy said the map recognizes the green infrastructure in this part of the County, it protects the environmental corridors, identifies potential historic (districts and key preservation areas, it locates public facilities as community focal points, and at the same time, identifies new school and park locations. He said most importantly, it recognizes the landfill and provides a landfill support area, in addition to an airport support area. No issues or areas of concern were raised by Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission favorably endorsed the plan as presented. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to this plan. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. • Commissioner Lemieux made a motion to recommend approval of the Senseny/ Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does he unanimously recommend approval of the Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan. This plan encompasses the area of the County that is generally east of the City of Winchester and Interstate 81 to the Clarke County line and from Redbud Run in the north to the Opequon Creek in the south. The Plan contains four maps and a narrative text that covers the following areas: Urban Areas and Residential Development: Business Development; Transportation; and Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities. This plan is an update to Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING: Rezoning #05 -12 of BPG Properties, submitted by Walsh, Colucei, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, P.C., to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #05 -08, approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 24, 2008. This revision relates to the "Transportation Mitigation" section of the proffers. The properties are located approximately .61 miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2864 Minutes of May 16, 2012 50E (Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate 81, and on the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). • The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 33 -A -109 and 33 -A -110 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Condition Deputy Director of Transportation, John A. Bishop, reported that this applicant is requesting a minor proffer revision under the new State Code which allows Board of Supervisors' action without a public hearing. Mr. Bishop stated the revision is focused on transportation and the purpose of the application is to allow for multiple users on this site, which was previously not envisioned. He said the revision to the proffers would allow for a second entrance on Route I 1 and a proration of the cash proffers based on the square footage of development. He added the proposed entrance meets all current spacing standards. Mr. Bishop explained that when this property was rezoned to a B3 parcel back in 2008, it was envisioned as a single use with up to a 750,000 square -foot warehouse. Consistent with that, it had a single entrance with a proffer that allowed for the relocation of that entrance up to Branson Spring Road. This would allow for a future inter - parcel to the north. The reason this was not planned to be done right away, is because the existing right -of -way does not allow room for a right -turn lane and the property owner to the north is not interested in providing right -of -way for the right -turn lane. Mr. Bishop said since that time, the applicant has worked to market their property and it has become evident that they would do better to allow for multiple uses, which is the reason for the rezoning application before the Commission this evening. Mr. Bishop said in order to allow for additional users, the applicant is asking • to be permitted to add a second entrance, near the southern border of the property. Mr. Bishop further explained that the relevant language which Would move the northern entrance up to Branson Spring Road and absorb the cost, as well as aide in the cost • of a signal at that future intersection, remains within the proffer. The other new language involves a change of the cash proffers to a proration, depending upon how much the applicant is developing at thel time. Mr. Bishop said if a user would only require 300,000- 400,000 square feet, the applicant would pay a proportionate share of their cash proffer, as opposed to the entire cash proffer. The remainder would be paid if and when the remainder of the property is built out. Mr. Bishop noted this application has been reviewed by the County Attorney and he did not have comments. VDOT passed along a positive recommendation and at this time, the staff does not have any concerns. He said the proposed entrances seem to be appropriate; he said the staff was insistent on the one entrance prior to this because it was only planned to be a single user. A member of the Commission asked if both proposed entrances would have right -turn lanes. The staff replied yes; a right -turn lane will also be constructed for the relocated entrance for the property to the north, once it develops. is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2865 Minutes of May 16, 2012 -10- Mr. John Foote, with Walsh, Colucei, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, P.C., was present to • represent the applicant, BPG Properties, Ltd. Mr. Foote stated a user of a portion of this property has been identified and that is why the applicant is interested in separating the parcel with multiple entrances. Mr. Foote said that because of a confidentiality agreement, the applicant could not identify the user; however, he did say it was a large pharmaceutical distribution company. Referring to the adjustment of the applicant's $550,000 escalation proffer, which was based on the floor area constructed, a commissioner expressed his concern that the applicant desired to pay only a portion of that amount for a single user, instead of the full amount. Thelconcern was if the applicant didn't build the full 750,000 square feet, the county would not get the full $550,000. Mr. Foote stated this was correct; he said their contention was if the full level of development was not reached, the same degree of mitigation was not required. Mr. Foote pointed out the escalator clause had already been triggered, because they were 18 months past the original rezoning; he said the escalator amount was no longer $550,000, but has now escalated to a greater amount. An additional issue was raised by a commissioner concerning a two -to -three acre property immediately south of the applicant's proposed entrance, which would be prohibited from getting an entrance onto Route I 1 because the applicant's entrance would be too close. It was noted the property to the south would not be able to create an entrance because of access managemlent standards. The commissioner preferred the applicant create an inter- parcel connector so this property to the south would not be landlocked. Mr. Foote said they were agreeable to doing so. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public meeting to citizen comments and called for • anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition to the request. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. • A motion was made by Commissioner Oates to recommend approval of this rezoning with the condition that the property to the south of the applicant's parcel be given an inter- parcel connection via the applicant's proffer statement. This motion was seconded by Commiissioner Unger and unanimously passed. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSION Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design Standards, §144.20 Sewer and Water would exempt lots greater than 20 acres from the individual on -lot s (drainfields) in the RA District. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 2012 Chapter 144, This revision requirements Page 2866 Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to include a • drainfield exemption for lots (parent tracts) which are 20 acres in size or greater and which are a part of a minor rural subdivision. She said the subdivision ordinance currently requires that all lots that are being subdivided be provided with a drainfield, in addition to a 100% reserve area per Chapter 161. Ms. Perkins said this requirement was enacted when agricultural lots were deleted from the zoning ordinance in 2009 as part of the Rural Areas Study. Ms. Perkins stated this item was discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting in March 2012, and then emailed to the DRRC on April 4, 2012. She said the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Oates said he is the one who brought this item forward because he had a case where he was doing a family subdivision off a working farm and it did not seem appropriate to have a drainfield reserved for the parent tract which would continue to be farmed and there were no plans for development. No issues or areas of concern were raised by other Commission members. The Planning Commission believed this proposed amendment was appropriate and agreed to forward this item to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.) Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA Rural Arleas District, §165- 401.07 Setback Requirements. This revision would apply to the accessory structure setback requirements in the RA District. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a request to include a setback exemption for accessory structures in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, if it is the first structure to be constructed on a property. Ms. Perkins stated that in the RA District, the dwelling is typically the primary structure and the accessory, structure would have lesser setbacks than the dwelling. However, under the current ordinance, if a structure other than a dwelling was constructed on the property first, it would be considered the primary structure and would be subject to the primary setbacks. Ms. Perkins said this proposed amendment would allow the construction of one non - inhabitable accessory structure with lesser setbacks, prior to the construction of the principal structure. She said this accessory structure could not contain any residential uses prior to the construction of the primary use and could not exceed 500 square feet in size. Ms. Perkins reported that this item was discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their February 2012 meeting and then emailed to the DRRC on April 4, 2012. She said the DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended that it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2867 Minutes of May 16, 2012 -12- No issues or areas of concern were raised by members of the Commission. The Planning • Commission believed the proposed amendment was appropriate and agreed to forward this item on to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion. (Note: Commissioners Mohn and Kenney were absent from the meeting.) ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by C6mmissioner Oates and second by Coin inissioner Ambrogi, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully Wilmot, Chairman R. Lawrence, • • Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2868 Minutes of May 16, 2012