Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
August_14_2013_Board_Agenda_Packet
CO w AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 6:00 P.M. - Closed Session There will be a Closed Session in Accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950, as Amended, Section 2.2 -3711, Subsection (A)(1), to Discuss Personnel Matters, Specifically, the Annual Evaluation of the County Administrator. 7:00 P.M. — Regular Meeting - Call To Order I nvnrafiinn Pledge of Allegiance Adoption of Agenda Pursuant to established procedures, the Board should adopt the Agenda for the meeting. Consent Agenda (Tentative Agenda Items for Consent are Tabs: U) Citizen Comments (Agenda Items Only, That Are Not Subject to Public Hearing.) Board of Supervisors Comments Minutes (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- A 1. Work Session with Sanitation Authority, July 10, 2013. 2. Regular Meeting, July 10, 2013. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 PAGE 2 County Officials 1. Employee of the Month Award. (See Attached) ------------------------------ - - - - -- B 2. Committee Appointments. (See Attached) ------------------------------------- - - - - -- C 3. Request from Commissioner of the Revenue for Refund. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- D 4. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Declaring Its Intention to Reimburse Itself from the Proceeds of One or More Financings for Certain Costs of Capital Improvements for Public Safety Purposes. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- E Committee Reports 1. Business Friendly Committee. (See Attached) -- F 2. Human Resources Committee. (See Attached) ------------------------------ - - - - -- G 3. Public Works Committee. (See Attached) -------------------------------------- - - - - -- H 4. Joint Finance Committee. (See Attached) ------------------------------------- - - - - -- Public Hearing Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Belle Grove Plantation - Belle Grove Wine Festival. Pursuant to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86 -3, Permit Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; Fee, for an Outdoor Festival Permit. Festival to be Held on Saturday, September 7, 2013, from 11:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., on the Grounds of Belle Grove Plantation, 336 Belle Grove Road, Middletown, Virginia. Property Owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- J 2. Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Monica Smith (Team Scrub) — Relay for Life, Motorcycle Show and Ride. Pursuant to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86 -3, Permit Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; Fee, for an Outdoor Festival Permit. Festival to be Held on Saturday, September 28, 2013, from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., on the Grounds of Winchester Harley- Davidson, 140 Independence Drive, AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 PAGE 3 Winchester, Virginia. Property Owned by Jobalie, LLC. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- K 3. Outdoor Festival Permit Request of Concern Hotline — 14 Annual Friday Fish Fry. Pursuant to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 86, Festivals; Section 86 -3, Permit Required; Application; Issuance or Denial; Fee, for an Outdoor Festival Permit. Festival to be Held Friday, September 6, 2013, from 4:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., on the Grounds of Grove's Winchester Harley Davidson, 140 Independence Drive, Winchester, Virginia. Property Owned by Jobalie, LLC. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- L 4. Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155, Taxation; Article II, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate; Section 155 -9 Findings, 155 -10 Eligibility for Special Assessments; Applications; Revalidations, Section 155 -13 Rollback Tax Imposed, and Section 155 -14 Changes In Status. The Purpose of these Amendments is to Defer the Payment of Rollback Taxes Until the Property's Use Changes Rather than at the Time the Zoning Classification Changes. (See Attached) ---------------------------------------- - - - - -- M 5. Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic; Article II, Stopping, Standing, and Parking; Section 158 -4 (D), General Restrictions. This Proposed Amendment is Minor in Nature and Would Make it Unlawful for Any Person to Park Any Vehicle on Any Street or Highway Without Displaying a Current State License or a Current State Inspection Sticker. (See Attached) --------------------------------------- - - - - -- N Planning Commission Business Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit #03 -13 of Verizon Wireless and Bertha Mcllwee Trust, Submitted by Donohue & Stearns, PLC, for a 195 Foot Tower and Equipment Shelter. The Property Is Located at 2250 Back Mountain Road (Route 600), and is Identified with Property Identification Number 49 -A -28 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. (See Attached) --------------------- - - - - -- O 2. Conditional Use Permit #04 -13 of Tracy Alt, for a Revision to the Requirements Under Conditional Use Permit #01 -11 Enabling an In -Home Family Day Care Facility. This Request is for the Purpose of Increasing the Number of Children Being Cared for at any Given Time. The Property AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 PAGE 4 is Located at 110 O'Brien's Circle (Shenandoah Hills), and is Identified with Property Identification Number 55F -1 -3 -140 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. (See Attached) -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- P 3. Rezoning #09 -12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, Submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to Rezone14.53 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2(General Business) District with Proffers. The Property is Located on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), 700 Feet South of the Intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), Fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81, and is Identified by Property Identification Number 33 -A -125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (See Attached) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Q 4. An Amendment to the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a Prioritized List of Capital Projects Requested by Various County Departments and Agencies. The Plan is Created as an Informational Document to Assist in the Development of the County's Annual Budget. Once Adopted, the CIP is a Component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The County Seeks to Amend the Current CIP to Add One Project, a New County /School Board Administration Building, to be Located Generally in the County's Urban Development Area. (See Attached) ------------------- - - - - -- R 5. Ordinance Amendment — Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning, Article I General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, Section 165 - 101.02 Definitions & Word Usage. Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses. Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts Part 401 — RA Rural Areas District, Section 165 - 401.02 Permitted Uses. Part 402 — RP Residential Performance District, Section 165 - 402.02 Permitted Uses — Proposed Revisions to Allow Temporary Family Health Care Structures as a Permitted Use. (See Attached) ---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- S Other Planning Items 1. Master Development Plan #01 -13 of Shenandoah. (See Attached) ---- - - - - -- T 2. Road Resolutions: (See Attached) - - -- -U a. Santa Maria Estates b. Christo Rey Estates AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2013 PAGE 5 Board Liaison Reports (If Any) Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn }^-�. FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES WORK SESSION WITH FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY July 10, 2013 A joint work session of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Frederick County Sanitation Authority was held on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 5:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Christopher E. Collins; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess; and Gary A. Lofton OTHERS PRESENT Robert Mowery, Frederick County Sanitation Authority Chairman; J. Stanley Crockett, Frederick County Sanitation Authority member; John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director of Planning & Development; Roderick Williams, County Attorney; and Uwe Weindel, Engineer/Director, Frederick County Sanitation Authority. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. He stated the purpose of the meeting was to find a way for the two bodies to improve communication. Mr. Mowery echoed Chairman Shickle and noted there had been weaknesses in communication in the past. The two bodies discussed various issues including ways to improve communication, the sewer and water service area expansion near Middletown, what FCSA considers when they receive requests, identification of impediments when requests for expansion are received, and options for service delivery issues when FCSA does not provide service currently. Engineer - Director Weindel stated there were areas FCSA could serve, but due diligence must be done with regard to planning. Chairman Shickle stated when the County considers a sewer and water service area expansion it normally precedes or is in conjunction with a rezoning request. He went on to say if there is an area identified by the Board for service both bodies should talk about the price tag before saying no. Assistant County Administrator Tierney stated that having maps /plans from FCSA showing existing and planned/future lines would be helpful to the board during these types of deliberations. In addition it would be helpful to see how FCSA's plans relate to land uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Crockett stated when FCSA considered a sewer and water service area expansion they believed those were areas where the Board of Supervisors wanted service provided. Administrator Riley suggested requests for sewer and water service area expansions should be placed on a Frederick County Sanitation Authority agenda for action before coming to the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Lofton stated he would like to hear from the Authority about their ability to serve current and proposed service areas. Supervisor DeHaven stated the Board needs to know what can be served and how much it will cost to serve identified areas, There was discussion about four future possibilities to see if they had merit. They were: - Annual presentation of Comprehensive Plan to Sanitation Authority Board. — The consensus was this had merit. - Sharing of Sanitation Authority comments on rezoning applications with Authority board members. — The consensus was this had merit. 2 - Annual meetings between boards. — The consensus was this had merit. Standard process for County board members and Authority board members to raise questions and get answers via staff. — The consensus was the flow of information needs to be board to board instead of board- staff - staff - board. Administrator Riley suggested an annual work session with the Sanitation Authority to be held in the summer. The agenda could include review of the annual report and discussion of capacity and infrastructure issues. Administrator Riley stated staff would try to put a work session together before the end of August. There being no further business, the work session adjourned at 6:11 p.m. 3 FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MINUTES REGULAR MEETING July 10, 2013 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 7:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Christopher E. Collins; Gene E. Fisher; Robert A. Hess; and Gary A. Lofton CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION Pastor Mark Carey, Fellowship Bible Church, delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice - Chairman DeHaven led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA — APPROVED AS AMENDED County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. advised he had one addition to the agenda. He added a Resolution Honoring the Sherando High School Baseball Team as item number 10 under County Officials. Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED 1 Administrator Riley offered the following items for the Board's consideration under the consent agenda: - Parks and Recreation Commission Report — Tab J; - Human Resources Committee Report — Tab K; - Public Safety Committee Report — Tab L; and - Resolution Honoring the Sherando High School Baseball Team — Item 10. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved the consent agenda by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant CITIZEN COMENTS Jay Marts, Gainesboro District, read the following statement: "Chairman Shickle, Members of the Board, Administrator Riley: We have had a busy agenda this evening. Many important actions. I very much appreciate the BUSINESS CLIMATE ASSESS CITIZEN COMMITTEE Report I want to highlight a few items that I believe align with the principles of Limited Government and Lower Taxes Business Attraction & Retention Subcommittee Report A recommendation [Individual Action Step 471 was to ... Assemble several people both from the county government and business sector and look into cutting government costs to the taxpayer. This would show that Frederick County... understands business and their only solution is NOT to raise taxes but they can also cut expenses like any business is required to do in down turns. Land use and Development Subcommittee 2 Recommendations concerning the Landscape Ordinance: `Frederick County is still by land area a largely rural county & beautiful. There is no justification for the complexity and excess of current policy...It is insulting to think that the County legislates beauty by dictating these requirements forcing the use of excessive materials. ' Land Use Matters: Highlights the Elimination of the Master Development Plan process. The Core problem... 'the process drags on for many months while we debate the number of trees to be planted and the number of cars added to the line at the light during rush hour.' `Frederick County... is a gem of a business location and has the opportunity to attract & retain a lot of business. There is competition and we need to find ways to be even more attractive to win business and expansion. One solution is to copy the competition & throw money and freebies at the prospects — We just have to throw more... Unfortunately, this approach sends the wrong signal — what we have is not worthy enough to get your business so we must bribe you to do the right thing. A less costly & more effective solution... 'Time is Money'... make our fast track' supersonic... Add value, not cost. REMINDER: Just last year the County Budget was amended to increase our Property Tuxes. This was to generate $3M to pay for across the board government employee salary increases. No budget cuts were made to ease the taxpayer burden Now just in the last few months we have some expenditures being considered or already committed. Outside Agency Contributions $2,100, 000 Public Safety Overtime $ 400,000 SunGard Software Implementation $ 397,420 Kraft Foods Global $ 325,000 Navy Federal Credit Union $ 250,000 McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. $ 150,000 $3,622,420 It would appear that the direction of the County seems to be that of government expansion, over - regulation and higher taxes. I hope that you will give consideration to the comments provided by citizens & their committees. Thank you for the opportunity to address the board. " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. MINUTES - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved the minutes from the June 12, 2013 regular meeting. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant COUNTY OFFICIALS APPOINTMENT OF OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SEAT — ROBERT W. WELLS APPOINTED.....,, ...,,,, Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board appointed Robert W. Wells to fill the vacant Opequon Magisterial District Seat until the special election to be held in November 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BILL M. EWING Chairman Shickle presented former Opequon District Supervisor Bill M. Ewing with a Resolution of Appreciation and gift in honor of his service on the Board of Supervisors. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD — LINDA L. HUFF APPROVED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 2013. Upon a motion by Supervisor ]Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board approved Linda L. Huff as Employee of the Month for July 2013. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for the award may be nominated by any County employee; and WHEREAS, Linda L. Huff who serves the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center was nominated for Employee of the Month; and WHEREAS, Linda L. Huff is being awarded for her loyalty and commitment to her position as Food Services Supervisor. During the month of February, Linda was able to fill in for the Food Service Manager in her absence. Linda handled daily issues including request forms, diets, menu changes, orders, weekly billing, meal counts and other requirements. Linda learned and handled these responsibilities with ease, all while showing professionalism and ability to work as a team. She was also able to handle issues between multiple facilities within the building without utilizing overtime due to her willingness to adjust her personal schedule when needed and work around her co- workers. Due to Linda's loyalty to the department and facility, the department was able to continue to operate efficiently. Linda is to be commended for her initiative and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 10'' day of July, 2013 that Linda L. Huff is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for July 2013; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its gratitude to the Linda L. Huff for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Linda L. Huff is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with this award. Adopted July 10, 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye 5 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS REAPPOINTMENT OF TODD B. LODGE AND JOHN R. MARKER TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AUTHORITY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lofton, the Board reappointed Todd B. Lodge and John R. Marker to the Conservation Easement Authority. This is a three year appointment. Term expires August 24, 2016 and September 26, 2016 respectively. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant REAPPOINTMENT OF DR. NED M. CLELAND AS FREDERICK COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FREDERICK - WINCHESTER SERVICE AUTHORITY - APPROVED Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board reappointed Dr. Ned Cleland as Frederick County representative to the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. This is a three year appointment. Term expires August 31, 2016. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 2 Opequon District Vacant KRAFT RESOUTION AND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a resolution approving a Performance Agreement and the appropriation and payment of $325,000, in installments, to Kraft Foods Global, Inc. to assist in expanding their operations in Frederick County. The company is proposing to invest $25,000,000 and create 25 jobs as part of this expansion. He noted the County's payment would be recouped in two years. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the Performance Agreement and appropriation and payment of the Local Economic Development Incentive Grant. WHEREAS, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL INC has made known its intent to expand its operation by making new taxable real estate and personal property investments and retain and create jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Policy as established by the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby approve and appropriate the payment of $325,000.00 in installments as stated in the executed Performance Agreement to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia from the Frederick County's Fund Balance to assist in expanding the operation for KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL WC in Frederick County, Virginia. BE IT RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Performance Agreement outlining the required performance criteria. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the County Administrator to execute the Performance Agreement on its behalf. ADOPTED, this 10 day of July 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye 7 Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant MCKESSON RESOLUTION AND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a resolution approving a Performance Agreement and the appropriation and payment of $150,000 from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to McKesson Medical- Surgical, Inc. to assist in constructing, equipping, and operating their facility in Frederick County. The company is proposing to invest $39,600,000 and create 205 jobs as part of this project. Upon a motion by Supervisor Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the Performance Agreement and appropriation and payment of the Governor's Development Opportunity Grant. WHEREAS, MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL INC. has made known its intent to locate a new distribution operation by making new taxable real estate and personal property investments and retain and create jobs; and WHEREAS, the company meets the policy guidelines of the Frederick County Economic Development Incentives Policy as established by the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission in 1995; BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve and appropriate the payment of $150,000.00 to the Industrial Development Authority of Frederick County, Virginia from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to assist in locating a distribution operation for MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL INC. in Frederick County, Virginia. BE IT RESOLVED, that said funds are subject to an executed Performance Agreement outlining the required performance criteria. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does authorize the County Administrator to execute the Performance Agreement on its behalf. ADOPTED, this 10 day of July 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant CORRESPONDENCE FROM TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN RE: BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT /ZONING INSPECTIONS — CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO MEET WITH MAYOR TO DISCUSS RE EUST. The Board received correspondence from the Town of Middletown regarding the friendly boundary line adjustment. The Board consensus was for Chairman Shickle and Administrator Riley to meet with the mayor to discuss issues for clarification. COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE REFUND REQUEST - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to approve a supplemental appropriation and authorize the Treasurer to refund Penske Truck Leasing Co. the amount of $6,798.40 for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2012. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the above refund request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant Administrator Riley advised this was a request from the Commissioner of the Revenue to 9 approve a supplemental appropriation and authorize the Treasurer to refund Penske Truck Leasing Co. the amount of $6,673.40 for proration or exoneration of vehicles and registration fees in the normal course of business for 2013. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the above refund request by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr, Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant REFERRAL OF UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL UNDER THE PUBLIC - PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002 TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FOR EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised the Board did not receive any competing proposals for a new county office building, so the only proposal for consideration is the original unsolicited proposal. He stated staff was requesting the Board refer the unsolicited proposal to the Public Works Committee for evaluation and begin negotiations of a Comprehensive Agreement. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board approved the resolution referring the unsolicited proposal under the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 to the Public Works Committee for evaluation and negotiation of a comprehensive agreement. WHEREAS, the County has received an unsolicited proposal under the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 ( "PPEA "), Va. Code §56- 575.1, et seq. from Frederick County Center, LLC to provide financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors accepted for consideration by 10 County, the PPEA proposal of Frederick County Center, LLC, to provide financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, and directed that the County solicit competing proposals for the financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, with such new building being located in the County and being approximately 150,000 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, the Board authorized the County Administrator to cause an appropriate Notice to be issued and published, as required by the PPEA and the County's PPEA procedures, and to cause an appropriate Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals to be issued; and WHEREAS, the June 25, 2013 deadline for receiving Competing Proposals passed and no Competing Proposals were received. WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has determined that proceeding with evaluation and negotiation of a Comprehensive Agreement under the PPEA initiated by acceptance for consideration of the unsolicited proposal, submitted by Frederick County Center, LLC, to provide financing for, land for, and design and construction of a new County office building, and purchase of the existing County office building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, using the procurement method of "competitive negotiation of other than professional services ", the evaluation criteria developed by County staff, and terms and conditions developed by County staff, is appropriate and justified and that use of "competitive negotiation" procedures under the PPEA for this procurement is likely to be advantageous to the County and the public based upon (1) the probable scope, complexity, or urgency of the project, and /or (2) risk sharing, added value, economic benefit from the project that would not otherwise be available. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County use the procurement method of "competitive negotiation of other than professional services ", the evaluation criteria developed by County staff, and terms and conditions developed by County staff, as reflected in the referenced Receipt of Unsolicited PPEA Proposal and Solicitation of Competing Proposals for unsolicited proposal of Frederick County Center, LLC; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Unsolicited PPEA Proposal of Frederick County Center, LLC, be referred to the Public Works Committee for further evaluation and negotiation of a Comprehensive Agreement. ADOPTED this 10 day of July, 2013. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote; Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye 11 Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A, Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF THE 2013 GROUP AA STATE CHAMPIONSHERANDO HIGH SCHOOL WARRIORS BASEBALL TEAM — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, Sherando High School opened its doors in 1993; and WHEREAS, during the ensuing twenty years, its athletic teams have become some of the best in the District and the State; and WHEREAS, the Sherando High School Baseball Team achieved the pinnacle of greatness by winning the 2013 Group AA State Championship and finishing the season with a record of 26 -1; and WHEREAS, Coach Pepper Martin, his staff, and the Sherando High School Baseball Team represented this community with distinction and honor throughout the State Baseball Tournament; and WHEREAS, this team achieved this honor through a combination of hard work, dedication, true sportsmanship, team spirit, and a "total team effort", which has brought favorable recognition upon themselves, their school, and their community. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors offers its congratulations to the coaches and players of the 2013 Sherando High School Baseball Team for a job well done; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a true copy of this resolution be presented to the coaches and the team. ADOPTED this 10 day of July, 2013. COMMITTEE REPORTS FREDERICK COUNTY BUSINESS CLIMATE ASSESSMENT CITIZENS' COMMITTEE — REPORT ACCEPTED Administrator Riley presented the following report from the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizens' Committee. On behalf of Frederick County, I want to thank all of the committee members and staff for their time and energy and for the serious and thoughtful approach they brought to this initiative. 12 We believe this was the ultimate demonstration in government transparency, as Frederick County allowed members of the business community to review and critique our organization and processes. We hope you found it to be a rewarding and educational experience. We look forward to evaluating all of the recommendations and working together to ensure Frederick County remains open for business. Attached please find the executive summary and full list of recommendations developed by the various subcommittees during Frederick County's business friendly exercise. BACKGROUND In the current economic climate, it is vitally important that local governments create the catalyst for businesses in their communities to grow and prosper. With this statement in mind, the Board of Supervisors, in October 2012, formed the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizen Committee or Business Friendly Committee to evaluate the current processes and procedures being used by local government. This effort was not intended to be a criticism of what local government is currently doing, but a search for, and understanding of, the ways that Frederick County Government can be more responsive and better meet the needs of new and existing businesses in today's world. Approximately 50 representatives from the business community participated in this endeavor. The participants were divided into four subcommittees, which addressed the following topics: Land Use and Development Taxes, Assessments, Fees, and Services - Business (Large and Small) Attraction and Retention - Local Procurement of Services. The kick -off meeting for this initiative was held on December 11, 2012. At this meeting, participants were introduced to their respective staff contacts and given a brief overview of Frederick County Government. Following the kick -off meeting, the subcommittees met numerous times between January and May 2013 and developed a list of recommendations. Staff has received the list of 65 recommendations from the subcommittees, which are included in this report. DOMINANT THEME Public Outreach and Promotion of Frederick Coun Many of the recommendations did not focus on Frederick County operations, but rather promotion of Frederick County as a business destination. Examples included: hiring a PR firm to promote Frederick County, hire an advertising agency to promote Frederick County interests in various media, and studying the need to create a public information officer position. One of the more cost effective approaches to promoting Frederick County was the recommendation to install signage along Interstate 81 and major routes entering Frederick 13 County stating Frederick County is Open for Business. This initiative would show Frederick County is a positive business partner and could help provide the County with a marketing advantage. Should the Board wish to evaluate this recommendation, staff would recommend this item be referred to the Transportation Committee for further consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS The following are three recommendations which overlapped two to three of the subcommittees. Those recommendations dealt with the completion of Route 37, establishment of an Economic Development Authority, and customer service training. Completion of Route 37 It was recommended that efforts be made to complete Route 37. Completion of Route 37 would encourage business expansion opportunities along Routes 50 East/West, 522 North/South, 11 North/South, and Route 7. It was further suggested a committee be established to focus solely on the completion for Route 37 East. The County was also recognized for is savvy in using matching funds to facilitate the completion of project. Economic Development Authority On October 24, 1967 Frederick County created the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Frederick, Virginia. The purpose of the IDA is to permit the Authority to acquire, own, lease, and dispose of properties, promote industry and develop trade by inducing manufacturing, industrial, and governmental enterprises to locate or to remain in the Commonwealth, and to further the use of its agricultural products and natural resources; health, welfare, convenience and prosperity. The Frederick County IDA issues tax- exempt revenue bonds to finance certain types of facilities and handles direct incentives to businesses. The powers and authorities of an industrial development authority and an economic development authority are the same. The change from and IDA to an EDA would provide the Board with an opportunity to re- establish the economic development vision for the county and provide the flexibility to pursue a variety of business attraction and retention options and strategies for implementing a diversified economic development strategy. Should the Board wish to pursue this recommendation, consideration should be given to the role of the FDA and its relationship to the Economic Development Commission. Customer Service Training It was recommended that county employees working the front lines (e.g. phones, information desks, etc.) should attend a professionally outsourced customer service seminar focusing on diffusing hostility in a customer and resolving problems for the customer. The committee members recognized that dealing with the public can be a difficult task and not everyone might 14 have the ability or tools necessary to diffuse a hostile customer or deal with an irrational complainant. Should the Board wish to pursue this recommendation, staff will work with the HR Department to secure outside customer service training for the "front line' county staff. COMMITTEE PRIORITIES As stated previously, there was surprisingly little repetition of recommendations between the four subcommittees. The next portion of this report will look at two or three recommendations from each subcommittee. Taxes, Fees, and Assessments Committee 1. Web Service Advertisement Frederick County has made great strides in offering web based services for billing and payment of fees and taxes, which save the County time and money. The committee recommends an organized and focused public awareness, advertisement, incentive, and education program to promote the use of web based services within Frederick County. One suggestion included advertising services via inserts in current tax bills, which provide step by step instructions regarding the use of online services. 2. Cross Department System Capability and Utilization There is a need for better cross - department information sharing. The committee recommends the County look at ways to utilize existing technology in a way that allows any department to access information about a customer's open activities. This would allow customers to make payments in one location rather than visiting two or three different departments to make the same payments. The cross - department system capability could lead to the elimination of some duplicated work performed by various departments. 3. Permit and Development Fee Comparison Study The Committee recommends a cost analysis comparison of business permits, fees, and other development review fees in Frederick County to surrounding localities be completed every five years. The study results should be provided to the EDC for comments. The final study should be provided to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Local Procurement Subcommittee 1. Implementation of Lean Effort The Committee recommends implementation of a lean effort or process improvement analysis for doing business with the County and its related parties focusing on how local merchants 15 conduct business with and sell to Frederick County. 2. Improve Communication and Education of Local Vendors The Committee recommends continuing process improvements for communicating with and educating current and potential local vendors. This could be accomplished by providing information packets to vendors at their time of issuance or renewal of their business license, web links with other County offices, and/or completion of website improvement efforts. 3. Streamlined and Uniform Processes for Doing Business with the County The Committee recommends development of uniform processes for doing business with the County and its related parties, to include Frederick County Public Schools. Currently procurement processes are different for many parts of the County. The streamlining and uniformity of these processes, where applicable, would facilitate the participation of local vendors in the procurement process. Land Use and Development Subcommittee 1. Elimination of the Master Development Plan Process The Committee recommends elimination of the Master Development PIan process because this process is incorporated in other existing ordinances and has resulted in a duplicative process. Should the Board wish to explore this recommendation further a re- evaluation of the current Master Development Plan process would be appropriate. 2. Reduction in Proffer Requirements The Committee recommends a reduction in proffer requirements for future rezoning applications, as well as amendments to existing proffers to create viable projects that will deliver needed transportation improvements and other benefits. The economics of the current proffer model or development impact model do not allow for the construction. Upon the committee's examination of the model it was determined that there are a numerous capital items contemplated and incorporated into the model, but those projects are not being built in the current year. It is not anticipated these government capital projects will be built at any time in the near future, if at all. Further, the Proffer Model does not fully account for business, personal property tax, and other revenue that is significant benefit to Frederick County in addition to property taxes. Should the Board wish to explore this recommendation further, a re- evaluation of the current Development Impact Model taking into account current economic conditions would be appropriate. 3. Simplify the Landscape Ordinance The Committee recommends a complete review and re- evaluation of the Frederick County Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance to provide a well defined purpose to allow for flexibility in 16 project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers. Additional recommendations concerning this ordinance can be found in the memorandum from Scot W. Marsh dated May 2, 2013, which is included in the Appendices of this report. Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee Business Retention 1. Development of an available workforce with needed skill sets. The Committee identified an available workforce with needed skill sets as a primary catalyst for retaining businesses. The Committee recommends working with the local junior high, high school, and college level school systems to help students identify potential skill sets needed in the community. One method of achieving this goal would be through the use of cluster groups to help local businesses work together with Lord Fairfax Community College and Shenandoah University to identify the classes and degrees needed for local jobs. In addition, there is a need to address the skill sets that are generally associated with technical skills. Representatives from the business community could also visit junior high and high schools to talk about careers. This could be the catalyst for student visits to local businesses or possible summer employment opportunities. Finally, the promotion of a "Returning Professional Scholarship" could be used to raise awareness to local students of local professional opportunities. Business Attraction 2. Development and Maintenance of a Catalog of Available Property for Potential Development The Committee identified the lack of "identified" land for development and expansion as a weakness in the area of business attraction. The Committee recommends the development and maintenance of a system to catalog property available for development. The format of this proposed system was unclear as was the department that would serve as the repository for this information. Should the Board wish to pursue this recommendation, it would be appropriate for the department charged with maintaining this information to make this information available to other departments (e.g. Planning, EDC, etc.). Tourism & Agriculture 3. Creation of Direct Marketing Brochure for Buy Fresh/Buy Local The Committee identified the promotion of agribusiness as a priority. It was noted the area was moving away from apple processing to direct marketing and local agriculture is a drawing card. The Committee recommends the development of a comprehensive, direct marketing brochure that addresses all buy fresh/buy local products in Frederick County. 17 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to those recommendations stated above, other recommendations focused on expansion of educational opportunities such as a Frederick County campus for Shenandoah University or the expansion of Shenandoah University programs to include a law school. The entire list of recommendations is attached for your review. While we did not elaborate on all recommendations, the Board is encouraged to carefully review the entire list and advise staff if there are other recommendations they feel merit additional consideration and study. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the various subcommittee reports and speaking with the chairmen of the subcommittees, we are pleased to report, overall, that Frederick County is a business friendly locality. Many of the participants were pleased to find the County in a good operating position. Our tax structure was seen as neither a benefit nor a deterrent for business. The County received praise for soliciting this feedback. It was noted that most localities would be "too timid" to undertake such a process as this. Other committees hoped this was a beginning effort to make Frederick County business friendly and that the process would continue. On behalf of Frederick County, I want to again thank all of the committee members and staff for their time and energy and for the serious and thoughtful approach they took to this initiative. This was the ultimate demonstration in transparency, allowing citizens to review and critique our business processes and we hope you found it to be a rewarding and educational experience. We look forward to evaluating all of the recommendations and working together to ensure Frederick County remains open for business. The Board's consensus was for Chairman Shickle and Administrator to review the recommendations within the report and refer them to the various committees and commissions for further evaluation. Upon a motion by Supervisor Hess, seconded by Supervisor Collins, the Board accepted the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizens' Committee report. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant 18 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on June 11, 2013. Members present were: Marty Cybulski, Ronald Madagan, Greg Brondos, Kevin Anderson, Patrick Anderson, and Gary Longerbeam. Members absent were: Charles Sandy, Jr. and Christopher Collins. Items Requiring Board of SWervisors Action_ 1, None Submitted for Board Information Only: Recreation Reserve Fund Policy — Mr. Madagan moved to adopt the Recreation Reserve Fund Policy as submitted at this meeting, second by Mr. Longerbeam, motion carried unanimously (6-0). The Recreation Reserve Fund Policy will be forwarded to the Finance Committee. Please find attached a copy of the Recreation Reserve Fund policy. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The HR Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Friday, June 7, 2013 at 8.00 a.m. Committee members present were: Supervisor Robert Hess, Supervisor Chris Collins, citizen member Dorrie Green and citizen member Beth Lewin. Committee member absent was citizen member Barbara Vance. Also present were: County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney, County Attorney Rod Williamson, and DSS Administrative Manager Delsie Butts. 'Items *Items Requiring Action* * * 1. There are no items that require action from the Board of Supervisors. * **Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. An overview of the County Benefits. The HR Director provided a general overview of the benefits offered to full time employees. 2. A discussion to determine schedule for Committee to review responsibilities of its Charter. The Committee agreed upon the schedule of topics and requested the HR Director to link the schedule to specific months of the year. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 19 Due to the Fourth of July holiday, the meeting in July has been canceled. The next HR Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 2, 2013. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE — APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA A meeting of the Public Safety Committee was held on Tuesday July 2, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at the Frederick County Public Safety Building, 1080 Coverstone Drive, Winchester, VA. Committee members present were: Committee Chairman Gary Lofton, Ron Wilkins, Chuck Torpy and Gene Fisher. Members absent were: Chris Collins and Michael Lindsay. Also in attendance were County Administrator John Riley, Public Safety Communications Director LeeAnna Pyles, Fire & Rescue Chief Denny Linaburg, Deputy Fire Chief Larry Oliver, County Attorney Rod Williams, Deputy Fire Chief Bill Bowmaster, Human Resources Director Paula Nofsinger and Sheriff Williamson. The following items were discussed: ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Retention of Staff update (see attached A,B) Chief Linaburg addressed three main topics regarding retention of staff. Topics included cessation of Kelly days (Adjusted Work Schedule, aka AWS), salary and benefits for Fire & Rescue employees, and the implementation of a fire academy. Elimination of the Kelly Day, aka AWS, would allow staff to work over the 200 hour threshold and earn overtime compensation. Additionally, it would add 4 -5 staff members back in the field to be utilized elsewhere in the department to cover shifts, training, etc., without having to hire new employees. Under this scenario, the hours worked would be 216/240 hrs per pay period which would equate approximately $400,000 in additional overtime. This would be a short term solution while the county staff looks at the long term solution of salary adjustments to Fire & Rescue, Sheriff, and Jail. Mr. Fisher emphasized the need to take a comprehensive look at the three departments and weigh the pros and cons of salary and shift scheduling. He also mentioned that HR needs to look at the department's request to see if there are better solutions and note any discrepancies that may have been overlooked. With the additional staff available, the Fire & Rescue Department would be able to offer academy classes for new recruits and training for current field staff. The Department needs to meet certain training standards set by the State such as ALS, BLS, Fire, and EMS classes, It was noted the academy would allow a "layman" to come into the system, receive necessary training, and be functional at a firehouse within 22 weeks. The Committee unanimously referred the above solutions to the Human Resource Committee for review, then onto the Finance Committee in August for action. ** *Discussion Items * ** Mr. Wilkins addressed the issue of Revenue Recovery, particularly his concerns about the billing process. He presented billing statements that City residents have received for services incurred 20 for transport by Winchester Fire & Rescue companies. Deputy Chief Oliver stressed that NO bill would be going to a County resident for services within the County. If, however the .citizen is transported by the City from a County address, it would be billed on the City's system. The only statement a County resident may possibly get would be an insurance request. The County would not being sending any such invoices to citizens in the County. Next Meeting: 1 C: Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. CODE AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE — APPROVED The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Monday, July 1, 2013 at 3:00 P.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Christopher E. Collins, Chairman; Robert A. Hess; Derek Aston; and Stephen Butler. Committee member James Drown was absent, Also present were County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr.; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; County Attorney Rod Williams; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue; Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning & Development; and Ross Spicer, Frederick County Commonwealth's Attorney. The committee submits the following: ** *Items Requiring Board Action * ** 1. Proposed Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155, Taxation, Article II, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate (Rollback Tax), — SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Code and Ordinance Committee reviewed a request to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155 Taxation, Article II would be amended to defer the payment of rollback taxes until the property's use changes rather than at the time the zoning classification changes. The Board and staff worked with Delegate Minchew during the 2013 legislative session for enabling legislation to permit this deferment. Upon a motion by Mr. Hess, seconded by Mr. Aston, the Code and Ordinance Committee forwarded this item to the Board for public hearing with a recommendation of approval. The motion was unanimously approved. Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved sending this amendment forward for public hearing. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: 21 Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant 2. Proposed Minor Amendment to Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic; Article II, Stopping, Standing and Parking; Section 158 -4 (D), General Restrictions, — SENT FORWARD FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Code and Ordinance Committee reviewed a request from the Commonwealth's Attorney to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 158 Vehicles and Traffic; Section 158 -4 (D). The proposed minor amendment would be as follows: D. Parking vehicle without current state license and inspection sticker. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle on any street or highway without the vehicle displaying a current state license a-R4 or a current inspection sticker. The penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. Upon a motion by Mr. Aston, seconded by Mr. Butler, the Code and Ordinance Committee forwarded this item to the Board for public hearing with a recommendation of approval. The motion was unanimously approved. Supervisor Hess noted the word "state" should be added to the amendment between current and inspection. Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved sending the proposed amendment forward for public hearing with the added language. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote; Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - APPROVED The Transportation Committee met on June 24, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Members Absent 22 Chuck DeHaven (voting) James Racey (voting) Gary Oates (liaison PC) Lewis Boyer (liaison Stephens City) Mark Davis (liaison Middletown) Christopher Collins (voting) Gene Fisher (voting) Bryon Grigsby (voting) ** *Items Requiring Action * ** I. VDOT Bridge Construction — APPROVED CLOSING BRIDGE DURING CONSTRUCTION As VDOT moves forward on reconstruction of the Route 623 Bridge, they are seeking County feedback on maintenance of traffic issues. Specifically, they wish to know if the County's preference is to keep the bridge open during construction or detour traffic. VDOT is proposing to fully close the bridge, which will lead to significant detours. However, this will also cause the project to be completed approximately a year sooner (1 construction cycle instead of 2) and at a savings of about $1 Million. Below are some of the details of existing traffic and detours provided by VDOT. Cost benefit due to non - phased construction: Approx 0.5 Million Cost reduction due to less width associated with need to maintain traffic: Approx 0.5 Million Traffic ADT: Approx. 50150 distribution, 367 vehicles a day Detour: 5.26 miles To Marlboro: 1.7 miles eastbound, 3.5 miles westbound To Winchester: 9.5 miles eastbound no difference, 13 miles westbound By consensus the committee has recommended that the Board support utilizing the suggested detours and have VDOT complete the project in one year at the lower project cost. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board approved closing of the bridge and suggested detours in order to reduce construction costs. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye 23 Opequon District Vacant ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** None PUBLIC HEARING TWELVE MONTH OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT REQUEST OF BLUE FOX BILLIARDS BAR & GRILL. PURSUANT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 86, FESTIVALS; SECTION 86 -3, PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE OR DENIAL; FEE; PARAGRAPH D. TWELVE MONTH PERMITS. ALL EVENTS TO BE HELD ON THE GROUNDS OF T BLUE FOX BILLIARDS BAR & GRILL 1160 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER VIRGINIA. PROPERTY OWNED BY 1160 MILLWOOD PIKE LLC. — APPROVED Administrator Riley advised this was a request for a twelve month outdoor festival permit by Blue Fox Billiards Bar & Grill. All events to be held on the grounds of Blue Fox Billiards Bar & Grill, 1160 Millwood Pike, Winchester, VA. Property owned by 1160 Millwood Pike LLC. Administrator Riley noted the applicant was detained in traffic and was not present at the meeting. Supervisor Lofton asked staff to seek for clarification as to the discrepancy on the application between the number of tickets sold and the number of attendees. Supervisor Fisher expressed some concern about parking and the use of adjacent property. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor DeHaven, the Board approved the 12 month outdoor festival permit request of Blue Fox Billiards with the parking issue to be addressed. Im The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165 , ZONING, ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIO NS; P,ARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES, PART 202 OFF- STREET PARKING, LOADING AND ACCESS, 165 - 202.03 MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS — REVISE AND UPDATE MOTOR VEHICLE AC CESS REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFICALLY ENTRANCE SPACING REOUIREMENTS. -APPROVED Deputy Planning Director- Transportation John Bishop appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a public hearing on entrance spacing standards, which would clarify Frederick County standards and VDOT's. He noted the proposal would use tangent to measure distance instead of center line. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission recommended approval. Supervisor Fisher asked if there were any existing properties that did not have access from a non- collector road or could not meet these proposed regulations. Supervisor Lofton expressed some concern about 4165- 202 -03 (A) 7 (4) regarding shared access. He interpreted it to read as a property owner having to give up a portion of their property for the benefit of a neighbor. He went to ask if it would not be better to remove VDOT's language from our Code, but refer affected parties to VDOT, and only address those issues we want to address. 25 Deputy Director Bishop responded the County Code could supersede VDOT's regulations, if the County's regulations were more restrictive. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no citizen comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Hess, the Board approved the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses; Part 202 Off - Street Parking, Loading, and Access; 165- 202.03 Motor Vehicle Access. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165 Zoning, to update the motor vehicle access requirements, specifically the entrance spacing requirements was considered. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 19, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on July 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165, Zoning, is amended to update the motor vehicle access requirements, specifically the entrance spacing requirements. Chapter 165 —Zoning Part 202 — Off - Street Parking, Loading and Access § 165- 202,03. Motor vehicle access. A. New driveways. (1) Private driveways or entrances shall be allowed to provide access to individual residences or uses. Private driveways or entrances shall also be allowed to provide access to parking lots and loading areas shared by a number of residences or uses. (2) In order to provide safe and convenient access and to provide efficient travel on arterial 26 highways, a. minimum spacing shall be provided between new driveways onto and entrances onto collector roads and ents arterial highways, and primary a�-�l highways, in the following zoning districts: [Amended 12 -10 -2008) B1 Neighborhood Business B2 Business General B3 Industrial Transition OM Office - Manufacturing Park M1 Light Industrial M2 Industrial General (3) In addition, the minimum spacing requirements shall apply to_ ll any business, industrial or institutional use in any zoning district, of - and to-fU any residential development in which more than one dwelling shares a parking lot. (4) Minimum spacing shall also be provided in all zoning districts between llnew residential driveways onto and commercial entrances onto collector roads arterial hi ghways and primary highways and lithe intersections of other roads with the - such collector roads, . eF arterial highways and primary highways Minimum spacing between driveways/ entrances and between driveways / entrances and intersections shall be as follows: Minimum Residential Driveway, Full Commercial Entrance and Intersection Spacing on Primary Highways af4Arterial Highways and Collector Roads Posted c.,eed r k t (mpg Road Classification Minimum Required Spacing (feet) 3 5 Gr less -r79 n4o-r a R 35 299 Minor Collector 100 Major Collector - residential drivewavlentrance T 150 Major Collector - commercial entrances 7-9-250 Primary or Arterial with posted speed limit 45 mph or less 4-50- 250 Primary or Arterial with posted speed limit more than 45 mph 2-00 495 (5) In all cases, the spacing distances shall be measured from the tangent line to the curb 1� return of the driveways or intersecting streets. (6) Tke FA i n i nqum spaeiRg for aeeess en M O ROF F=E)' FA-adds sha be :70 feet between 9 13 1995j Deleted [Note: (6) can be deleted because its contents have been moved to the chart in (4).] Access Limit - 33 Hn [j-(a} Existing access. When a parcel abuts a minor or collector street that intersects with the arterial or primary highway and when the parcel cannot be provided with an entrance onto the arterial or primary highway that meets the spacing requirement, access to the parcel shall be only from the existing entrance on the minor or collector street and new entrances shall not be allowed directly onto the arterial or primary highway. [71 {}Shared access. When a lot is created on a collector road or arterial or primary highway, shared means of access to the road or highway shall be created by access easement, shared driveway, shared entrance or other means to ensure that the spacing requirements have been met. (1j When a lot is divided or developed that can be provided with a driveway entrance meeting the spacing requirements but that is adjacent to other parcels or lots that will not be able to have entrances meeting the spacing requirements, means of highway access to the 28 adjoining property may be required by the Zoning Administrator on the lot to be divided or developed. [2] When a lot is divided or developed that cannot be provided with access meeting the spacing requirements and when means of shared access that meets spacing requirements has been provided on adjoining lots that can be used to provide access to the lot in question, entrances shall not be allowed directly onto the arterial or primary highway from the lot to be divided or developed. [3] When a number of lots are divided or developed that have been included together on an approved master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat, shared driveways / entrances shall be provided as required to meet the spacing requirements. [4] When shared access is provided to meet the requirements of this section, the Zoning Administrator may require that it be provided in the form of an access easement. The Zoning Administrator may require a deed of dedication describing provisions for joint use and maintenance of that easement. Provisions for shared entrance signs may also be required. [5] Shared access easements shall be provided in a manner so that shared driveways are clearly separated from parking areas, loading areas and pedestrian walkways. [6] Shared access easements that follow lot lines are preferred. (8) New lots. No new lot shall be created on an aFteFial hi g r any state maintained road unless spacing requirements can be met for driveway s/entrances on the lot or unless access is provided through shared or existing access. (9) Number of driveways or entrances. No more than one driveway or entrance shall be allowed per parcel unless each drivewaylentrance from the parcel separately meets the spacing requirements, relative to each other and relative to any intersections within the minimum reauired spacing distance in all directions. The Zoning Administrator may permit entrancesldriveways that do not meet the minimum spacing requirements, r they are utilized sole) or emergency access and are not open the public, such entrances must be gated or chained. (10) Entrances on collector and minor streets. Whenever a parcel abutting an arterial highway also abuts a collector or minor road, in order to obtain an entrance on the arterial road, an entrance must be provided on the collector or minor road. This shall only be required if a safe entrance can be provided on the collector or minor road, meeting all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation. FM (11) All driveways and entrances onto state - maintained highways must also meet all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation and all other requirements Lthe Frederick County Code. T (12) New driveways and entrances shall align with existing or planned driveways, crossovers, turn lanes or other access features. This shall only be required if the resulting alignment provides safe access and if all requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation are met. (13) The location of new driveways and entrances shall conform with road improvement plans or corridor plans that have been adopted by Frederick County or the Virginia Department of Transportation. (14) Private roads providing lot access to multifamily and single- family small lot housing, as permitted in §144 -24 of the Subdivision Ordinance, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The pavement design for the private roads shall include eight inches of aggregate base material, Type 1, Size No. 21 -13, and shall be paved with a 165 No. psy asphalt concrete, Type SM -2A, surface treatment. In addition, curb and gutters, standard curb CG -6, CG -7 or roll -top curb and sidewalks shall be provided along private roads; however, the Zoning Administrator may approve a waiver of sidewalks on private streets, provided that another recreational amenity is substituted for the sidewalk. Additionally, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for curb and gutters and allow alternate pavement design to accommodate low impact design provided that the private road design is determined to be acceptable by the Director of Public Works. B. Alternative methods, (1) The Zoning Administrator may allow other means of motor vehicle access which do not meet the above requirements. Such means may involve the use of entrances which physically limit or restrict left turns {such as a right -in /right -out only entrancep, methods which ensure one -way travel or other methods. (2) In such cases, the Zoning Administrator may require a traffic access plan which describes existing traffic, conditions and design on the streets abutting the site and the methods proposed to ensure that the intent of this section has been met. (3) Requested alternative methods of motor vehicle access which do not meet the minimum requirements of § 165 - 202.03 must be approved by VDOT prior to approval by the Zoning Administrator. C. Internal circulation. A complete system of internal traffic circulation shall be provided to serve all uses in any shopping center, industrial park or any development included in a single master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat approved by Frederick County. In such developments, internal access shall be provided in a fashion so that all uses can be mutually accessed without entering onto arterial or primary highways. In such cases, a pattern of internal circulation shall be designed to ensure that conflicts are avoided between moving vehicles, parking areas, pedestrian areas, loading areas and the various uses provided. 30 D. Pedestrian access. Safe pedestrian walkways shall be provided to all uses on land included in a master plan or site plan approved by Frederick County. Sidewalks shall be provided in conformance with adopted corridor or walkway plans or approved master development plans. The Board of Supervisors may require additional sidewalks or walkways on master plans or the Zoning Administrator may require additional sidewalks or walkways on site plans to promote a general system of pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods or business corridors. E. Fire lanes. Fire lanes shall be required as set forth in Chapter 90, Fire Prevention.EN [Added 12- 9 -19921 This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401 RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, 165-401.06 PERMITTED LOT SIZES REVISE IN ORDER TO ALLOW DIVISIONS TO EXISTING RURAL PRESERVATION TRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECORDED. - APPROVED Director of Planning and Development Eric Lawrence appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a request to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded, so long as the division results in acreage being added to the preservation tract. He went on to say the Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposed ordinance amendment. He concluded by saying staff was aware of at least one subdivision that would utilize this ordinance, if approved. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no citizen comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor Collins, seconded by Supervisor Fisher, the Board 31 approved the ordinance amending the Frederick County Code Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165- 401.06 Permitted Lot Sizes. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning to revise the requirements to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded, was considered. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 19, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance on July 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401 RA (Rural Areas) District, 165 - 401.06 Permitted Lot Sizes, are amended to allow divisions to existing rural preservation tracts that have been recorded if (1) The division results in an overall acreage increase to the Rural Preservation Tract; (2) Acreage added to the preservation tract may come from areas internal or external to the rural preservation subdivision; (3) Acreage from the preservation tract may not be adjusted into parcels outside of the rural preservation subdivision; and (4) The Rural Preservation Tract continues to meet all requirements of Chapter 165 and 144. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 401— RA Rural Areas District § 165- 401.06 Permitted lot sizes. C. Rural preservation lots. LL Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: Lai Sixty percent or more of the parent tract shall remain intact as a contiguous parcel (Rural Preservation Tract). b� This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. 32 (c) No future division of this designated Rural Preservation Tract shall be permitted unless all the following are met: u L The division results in an overall acreage Increase tot he ral Preservation Tract; Rural and ii. Acreage added to the preservation tract moy come from oreas internal or external to the rural preservation subdivision; and W. Acreage trom the 2reservation tract may not be adjusted into parcels outside o the rural preservation subdivision; and iv. The Rural Preservation Tract continues to meet all requirements of Chapter ISS and 144. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Christopher E. Collins Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Robert A. Hess Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Opequon District Vacant BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS Shawn Bray, Opequon District, appeared before the Board to address some data the Board might not be aware exists. He asked the Board to keep one thing in mind when making decisions that impact the lives of Frederick County residents and do perform due diligence when those decisions might break the backs of the taxpayers. The Board needs to be aware of the issues residents face when the Board raises taxes. He advised that Frederick County has seen the highest increase in the poverty rate within a 75 mile radius. He noted one would have to look to southwest Virginia to find a comparable increase. He asked the Board to realize the weight of their decisions and do their due diligence. 33 Gerald Ducatte, Shawnee District, appeared before the Board regarding a safety concern. He stated there was a rifle range located off of Papermill Road, about 1 mile from his house. On May 26, 2013 he and his wife were sitting on his porch when he heard shots being fired and then heard bullets coming through the trees. About one hour later, they heard high powered rifle shots. He contacted the Sheriff s Department and spoke with Sergeant Swisher. He stated Sergeant Swisher found the place where the shooting was occurring, but no high powered rifles were found. A ticket was not issued and the people were told to shoot in a different direction. Mr. Ducatte stated he would like someone to check out this gun range to see if it is legal. He concluded by saying it was owned by a company in Strasburg, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS There were no Board of Supervisors' comments. ADJOURN UPON A MOTION BY VICE- CHAIRMAN DEHAVEN, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FISHER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (8:25 P.M.) 34 Employee of the Month Resolution Atfwded fa• Pamela S. Baber SEAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors recognizes that the County's employees are a most important resource; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution which established the Employee of the Month award and candidates for the award may be nominated by a;tzy County employee; and, NVTIE+ REAS, the Board of Supervisors selects one employee from those nominated, based on the merits of outstanding performance and productivity, positive job attitude and other noteworthy contributions to their department and to the County; and, AREAS, Pamela. S. Baber who serves the Public. Safety Communications Department was nominated for Employee of the Month; and, WHEREAS, Pamela S. Baber is being awarded for her loyalty and commitment to her position. as Supervisor for the Dispatch Center. Pam has been a supervisor for the past ten year. She does all of the scheduling for the Dispatch Center, making sure that all. shifts are covered appropriately and fairly. She is always willing to assist other dispatchers and even willing to come in on her days off. She rarely leaves work on time, always making sure that everything is in order for the oncoming shift. Pam always keeps a positive attitude in an environment that is very high stress and fast paced. Her knowledge and experience can be seen clearly in her ability to train and mentor new employees. Pam cares deeply about her fellow first responders. Pam is to be commended for her initiative, and dedication. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors this 14 day of August 2013, that Pamela S. Baber is hereby recognized as the Frederick County Employee of the Month for August 2013; and, BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends gratitude to Pamela S. Baber for her outstanding performance and dedicated service and wishes her continued success in future endeavors; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pamela S. Baber is hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with her award. County of Frederick, VA Board of Supervisors i __ Richard C. Shickle, Chairman V �a d ti e u 0] 'H N ^IJ 0 m of as `f+a 'N O 41 I C3 V C3 U 1 1 4 On County of Frederick Employee of the Month Nomination Form Outstanding service can be demonstrated in many ways, but it always involves more than just good job performance. An employee can be outstanding for suggesting improvements that result in greater efficiency, improved service, or cost savings; for leadership in departmental activities, for the department's goals or for the goals of the county as a whole. Outstanding service includes job performance that clearly exceeds requirements. The Board of Supervisors must discount generalities not supported by specific examples of activities which support the nomination. Remember, there is noway to know whether specifics are missing by accident or because they do not exist. if you believe an employee has made an outstanding contribution, give specific examples of what they have done. Nominations are not judged on how well you write. However, they are judged on the facts presented. Employee Name: Pam Baber Department: Public Safety Communication Nomination Submitted By: Michael Dehave /LeeAnna Pyles Department: Public Safety Communication Nominator's Signature: 0 Reason for Nomination (please be specific, precise, and definite): Date: 05/13/2013 Pam Baber is a supervisor with the Public Safety Communications Department. She has been employed by the County for 15 years. She has been a supervisor for the past 10 years. I have had the privilege of working with Pam the past couple years and have seen the things she does first hand. Often the role of supervisor and the duties that it entails goes unnoticed. Pam does all the scheduling for the Communications Department, which is a task in itself for a 24/7 department. But she makes sure the shifts are covered appropriately and fairly. She accomplishes this, always keeping overtime in mind. Pam is an outstanding supervisor. She is always willing to assist other dispatchers, with any need,while dealing with day -to -day issues. She keeps a positive attitude which is sometimes difficult in a high stress, face paced environment such as the dispatch center. Pam is willing to work over or come in on her days off to cover a shift. She rarely leaves work on time. Making sure that the oncoming shift is aware of what has been going on. She cares about the citizens of Frederick County and her fellow first responders. They are always utmost on her mind. Pam has been a trainer for several years. Her knowledge and experience shows in her ability to train and mentor new employees. Often the time and energy that it takes to train a new employee is overlooked. Pam is someone to look up to in the department. HR Section: Received: ' Emailed to HR Committee: COUNT' of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 1738 5401665 -5666 x,71 �; 011, 1 : . Fax 5401667 -0370 E -mail: TO: Board of Supervisors jriley @ co.frederick.va.us FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Admini tr DATE: August 8, 2013 RE: Committee Appointments Listed below are the vacancieslappointments due through October, 2013. As a reminder, in order for everyone to have ample time to review applications, and so they can be included in the agenda, please remember to submit applications prior to Friday agenda preparation. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. VACANCIESIOTHER Board of Zoning Appeals Robert W. Wells Member-At-Large 5114 Laura Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Term Expires: 12/31/16 Five year term (The Chairman recommends Mr. Ron Madagan to the Board of Zoning Appeals to fill the seat of Mr. Robert Wells. Mr, Madagan has agreed to serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals (There are seven members on the Board of Zoning Appeals. Recommendations are made by the Board of Supervisors and submitted to the Judge of the Frederick County Circuit Court for final appointment Regional Jail Authori Bill M. Ewing -- Frederick County Board of Supervisors Representative Term Expires: 10/13/16 Four year term (it is recommended that Supervisor Wells fill the seat vacated by Mr. Ewing. Other current county members are Supervisor Charles DeHaven and County Administrator John Riley. Chairman Richard Shickle serves as Alternate.) 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, Virginia 22601 Memorandum — Board of Supervisors August 8, 2013 Page 2 Russell 150 Communitv Development Authoritv lCDA Alan Hudson President, Ominex 5252 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 207 Alexandria, VA 22312 Term Expires 03/01/17 Four year term (see Attached Application of Mr. Walter Alkens. Request to appoint Mr. Walter Aikens to replace Mr. Hudson.) Extension Leadership Council Edward J: Keenan - Shawnee District Representative 840 Careers Valley Road Winchester, VA 22602 Home: (540)667-4816 Term Expires: 01/25/14 Four year. term (Mr. Keenan has resigned.) Parks and Recreation. Commission Ron Hodgson - Stonewall District Representative Sportsplex 221 Commonwealth Court Winchester, VA 22602 Office: (540)868 -2200 Term Expires: 06/23/14 Four yea r`term (Mr. Hodgson has resigned). OCTOBER 2013 Regional Jai! Authority Charles S. ❑eHaven, Jr. — Board of Supervisors Representative 2075 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Term Expires: 10/13/13 Four year term INFORMATIONAL, DATA SHEET FOR FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 0 � 0 � District Supervisor, would like to nominate you to serve on the Ru g 5e j/ / 0 6 e m m an, D,-- to l e p m e i4 jhe�e,' j V 6&A As a brief personal introduction to the other Board members, please fill out the information requested below for their review prior to filling the appointment. (Please Print Clearly, Thank You.) Name: W - ) + e 4 R. 19 ; Ren-5 Home Phone: J'Y4- /,&.?- &R-39 Address 383 C io e o l o P P- Office Phone: - ')'y1 1 - ee 4 9 3 75 WiN c,h eS - � G►e, Uh as &e3 Fax: `I Employer: jj ,4 W C 0 n Sfle n Email: WA14ex C j9r, -ens 1 e 4 — C Q th Occupation: Civic /Community Activities: 0 h n n C Iu b- F r' R 6 4 P )0 -C 6/0 y fC41'4 h C � L4 Will You ]Be Able To Attend This Committee's Regularly Scheduled Meeting On: Yes: ✓ No: Do You Foresee Any Possible Conflicts Of Interest Which Might Arise By Your Serving On This Committee? Yes: No: ✓ Explain: Additional Information Or Comments You Would Like To Provide (If you need more space, please use the reverse side or include additional sheets): Applicant's Signature: Nominating Supervisor's Comments: (06109106) U:\T.IP\fon doc COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue Frederick County Board of Supervisors CC: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney DATE: August 2, 2013 RE: Refund -- Undisclosed Taxpayer — Disabled Veteran's Relief I am in receipt of the Commissioner's request (copy attached), dated August 1, 2013, to authorize the Treasurer to refund a taxpayer the amount of $3,311.66 for 2011, 2012, and 2013 real estate taxes, based on proper filing of proof of 100% permanent and total disability directly due to military service, as required under the Virginia Code change as a result of the Constitutional amendment that took effect for 2011. Taxpayer's name cannot be made public because of applicable legal requirements as to privacy, but is known to the Commissioner, the Treasurer, and the County Attorney on a confidential basis. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1- 3981(A) of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), I hereby note my consent to the proposed action. Further pursuant to Section 58.1- 3981(A), the Board of Supervisors will need to act g ie a est, as indicated in the Commissioner's memorandum. oderick B. Williams County Attorney Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Frederick County, Virginia Ellen E. Murphy Commissioner of the Revenue 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5681 Fax 540 - 667 -6487 email: emurphy @coArederick.va.us August 1, 2013 TO: Rod Williams, County Attorney Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Ellen E. Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue RE: Exoneration Veteran Relief Refund (Name withheld) Please approve a refund of $3,311.66 for real estate taxes for undisclosed taxpayer that qualified under the disabled veteran relief. Taxpayer had just received needed information from Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and is qualified for 2011, 2012 and 2013 real estate tax relief The Treasurer and County Attorney have the taxpayer name but under DVA rules this cannot be made public. Please also approve a supplemental appropriation for the Finance Director for this refund. Documentation for this refund has been reviewed and meets all requirements. It is retained in the Commissioner of the Revenue office and contains secure data. Exoneration is $3,311.66. Date: 8/01/13 Cash Register: COUNTY OF FREDERICK Time: 09:43:25 Cashier: Total _Transact_].05s - - ----- Customer Name-- Customer Transactions: -)tions: 2=Edit 4=Delete 5=View Opt Dept Trans Ticket No. Tax Amount Penalty/Int Amount Paid RE2011 1 000242 $615.80- .00 35.90- RE2011 2 00024220002 $635.79- $.00 $635. _ RE2012 3 00023720001 $682.46- $-00 RE2012 4 00023720002 $682.46 - 4 RE2013 5 00023660001 $675.15- $-00 Total Paid : $3,311.66 — F3=Exit F14=Show Map # F15=Show Balance =Sort-Entered F21=CmdLine COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 5401665 -5666 Fax 5401667 -0370 E -mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us 1 EAO- RA.ND I TO: Board of Supervisors /d FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator SUBJECT: Reimbursement Resolution for Replaceme t ound Hill Fire and Rescue Station DATE: August 7, 2013 The attached resolution gives notice of the Board's intent to seek reimbursement through debt proceeds or other financings for monies expended in advance for the design of the proposed replacement Round Hill fire and rescue station. The resolution approves a maximum reimbursement amount of $452,347.00 for project design. Staff is seeking Board approval of this revised resolution. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JRR/j et Attachment 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN COSTS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES The County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County ") has determined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for public safety purposes, specifically for the design of a replacement Round Hill fire and rescue station (the "Project "). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 -2. 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County to pay the costs of designing the Project from the proceeds of one or more financings. The maximum amount of financing expected to be issued for the design of the Project is $452,347.00. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing resolution was by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 14, 2013 by the following roll call vote: Richard C. Shickle Gary A. Lofton Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Robert A. Hess Christopher E. Collins Robert W. Wells Gene E. Fisher John R. Riley, Jr. Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Frederick, Virginia Resolution No.: COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 5401665 -5666 Fax 5401667 -0370 E -mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R Riley, Jr.,.County Administra r t SUBJECT: Business Friendly Committee Report DATE: July 26, 2013 At the July 10, 2013 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board voted to accept the report from the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Citizens' Committee. During the Board's discussions, it was the consensus for the Chairman and County Administrator to meet and review the recommendations presented and determine which committees or boards would evaluate and provide guidance regarding possible implementation. To that end, provided below is a list of the phase I recommendations and the respective committee(s) assignment(s). Public Information Officer The dominant theme coming from the various subcommittees was public outreach and promotion of Frederick County. One of the recommendations pertaining to this theme was the need to create a public information officer position. This recommendation should be forwarded to the Human Resources Committee for further evaluation with a recommendation to be forwarded to the Board at a future meeting. Signage Along Major Routes Entering Frederick County One recommendation regarding promoting Frederick County as a business destination was to install signage along Interstate 81 and major routes entering Frederick County (i.e. Routes 7, 11, 50, and 522) stating "Frederick County is Open for Business ". The committee felt this initiative 1 107 North Kent Street ® Winchester, Virginia 22601 would show Frederick County as a positive business partner and could help provide the county with a marketing advantage. This recommendation should be forwarded to the Transportation Committee and the Economic Development Commission for review of signage placement and messaging, respectively. Establishment of. an Economic Development Authority The creation of an economic development authority or EDA was identified as an important catalyst to fostering a more competitive business environment . for Frederick County. While the powers and authorities of an industrial development authority, which currently exists in Frederick County and. an economic development. authority are the same, the change from an IDA to an EDA would provide the Board of Supervisors with an opportunity to 're- establish the economic development vision for the county and would also provide the flexibility to pursue a variety of business attraction and retention'option5 and strategies for implementing a diversified economic development strategy. This recommendation should first be referred to the Winchester- Frederick County:Economic Development Commission. This would give the'Commission an opportunity considerthe EDA's role in Frederick County's business attraction and retention efforts and its relationship to the current Economic Development Commission. Review And Evaluation of the Matter Development Plan ProcesS The. and Use :and Development Subcommittee recommended the elimination.of the Master Development Plan process.. They felt this process was already incorporated in other existing ordinances and results in a duplicative process. A re- evaluation:of the current Master Development Plan process would be appropriate. This recommendation should be referred to the Planning Commission for initial evaluation by the Development Review and Regulations Committee and the entire Planning Commission. Simplification of the Landscape Ordinance The Land Use and Development Subcommittee recommended a complete'review and re- evaluation of the Frederick County Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance to pro ' vide a .well defined purpose to' allow for flexibility 'in project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers A re- evaluation of the current Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance would be appropriate. This recommendation should be referred to the Planning Commission for initial evaluation by the Development Review and Regulations Committee and the entire Planning Commission Reduction in Proffer Reauirements County of Frederick Paula A. Nofsinger Director of Human Resources (540) 665 -5668 Fax: (540) 665 -5669 pnofsing @co.frederick.va.us TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Paula Nofsinger, Director of Human Resources DATE: August 5, 2013 SUBJECT: Human Resources Committee Report IHlYfHl, H 1111H11l INIHl1 NIIIIII9YI4H lYIHNlfIlIl411.1IHlIWW 11l1HH9111l11111tIH11 14111041410 The HR Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on Friday, August 2, 2013, at 8:00a.m. Committee members present were: Supervisor Robert Hess, Supervisor Chris Collins, Supervisor Robert Wells, Citizen Member Dorrie Greene, and Citizen Member Beth Lewin. Committee member absent was Citizen Member Barbara Vance. Also present were: County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr., Assistant County Administrator Kris Tierney, County Attorney Rod Williams, NRADC Superintendent Jim Whitley, F &R Director Dennis Linaburg, F &R Deputy Director Bill Bowmaster, Finance Director Cheryl Shiffler, and Assistant Finance Director Sharon Kibler. * ** Items Requiring Action * ** 1. Committee recommends approval of resolution to elect not to participate in the Virginia Local Disability Plan (VLDP) through the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). Electing not to participate in the VLDP plan through the VRS will provide the County flexibility in choosing insurance carriers. This would permit staff to evaluate other alternatives that are code compliant and more affordable. 2. Approval of the Employee of the Month Award. The Committee recommends Employee of the Month Award for Pam Baber, Public Safety Communications Shift Supervisor. ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. The Public Safety Committee unanimously referred to the HR Committee retention solutions for the Fire & Rescue Department. The Committee supports Fire & Rescue's retention solutions and recommends forwarding to the Finance committee for discussion at its September meeting. 2. A discussion of the Fire & Rescue department's EMS Billing Manager position's salary range. The Committee supports the proposed salary range and grade and recommends forwarding to the Finance Committee for discussion at its August meeting. 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 3. A discussion of the Public Information Officer Job description. In light of the recent recommendations of the Business Friendly Committee that a PIO position be examined, the Committee once again discussed language for a proposed PIO job description which had been discussed back in February. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next HR Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 6, 2013. Respectfully Submitted, Human Resources Committee Robert Hess, Chairman Chris Collins Robert Wells Dorrie Greene Beth Lewin By: < Paula A. Nofsinger / Director of Human R sources 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 County of Frederick Paula A. Nofsinger Director of Human Resources (540) 665 -5668 Fax: (540) 665 -5669 pnofsinger@co.frederick.va.us TO: Human Resources Committee and Board of,Super isors FROM: Paula Nofsinger, HR Direc�l� -' DATE: August 5, 2013 SUBJECT: General Assembly Legislation mandating Local Disability Plans As you may know, the General Assembly has passed significant pension reform measures that will affect the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) programs. As a VRS covered employer, we are preparing for the next change that is scheduled to take place on January 1, 2014. VRS has informed political subdivision employers about the upcoming additions of a VRS Hybrid Retirement Plan and a Virginia Local Disability Plan (VLDP). This recent legislation created the Virginia Local Disability Plan (VLDP), a disability benefit for political subdivisions (including towns) and school division employees who will be covered under the VRS Hybrid Retirement Plan effective January 1, 2014. The VRS Hybrid Retirement Plan combines the features of a defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan. The plan will apply to most members hired on or after January 1, 2014, and current employees who elect to opt into the plan during a special election window. The current VRS Disability Retirement will not be available to Hybrid Retirement Plan members. These employees will automatically be covered by VLDP through the state plan unless our governing body elects to opt out and provide a comparable employer -paid program. The comparable coverage must include components that are mandated in the Virginia Code. The decision to participate or opt out is irrevocable. The state has partnered with Unum to offer the VLDP plan to jurisdictions that wish to participate. They are offering their plan at a rate of 0.91 percent of monthly insured earnings with the rate guaranteed for six months. Fortunately, other insurance carriers have proposed alternative plans that meet the requirements of the Virginia code and are more affordable to jurisdictions. I am respectfully requesting that the Committee recommend to the Board of Supervisors that Frederick County elect to opt out of the state plan and evaluate alternative options. This action would require a resolution by the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your support and please contact me directly with any questions. 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601 RESOLUTION Irrevocable Election Not to Participate in Virginia Local Disability Program WHEREAS, by enacting Chapter 11.1 of Title 51.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Virginia General Assembly has established the Virginia Local Disability Program ( "VLDP ") for the payment of short -term and long -term disability benefits for certain participants in the hybrid retirement program described in Virginia Code § 51.1 -169; and WHEREAS, for purposes of VLDP administration, an employer with VLDP- eligible employees may make an irrevocable election on or before September 1, 2013, requesting that its eligible employees not participate in VLDP as of the VLDP effective date of January 1, 2014, because it has or will establish, and continue to maintain, comparable employer -paid disability coverage for such employees that meets or exceeds the coverage set out in Chapter 11.1 of Title 51.1 of the Code of Virginia, with the exception of long tern care coverage, by January 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of Co of Freder Virginia 5 51 3 4 , to make this irrevocable election to request that its eligible employees not participate in VLDP; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that County of Frederick, Virginia irrevocably elects not to participate in VLDP because it has or will establish, and continue to maintain, comparable employer -paid disability coverage for such employees; and it is further RESOLVED that, as an integral part of making this irrevocable election, Cou of Frederick, V irgini a certifies that it has or will establish, and continue to maintain, comparable employer -paid disability coverage for such employees. Adopted in Winchester , Virginia this Day day of Mo , 2013. Authorized Signature Title COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works #E SUBJECT: Public Works Committee Report for Meeting of August 6, 2013 DATE: August 7, 2013 The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, August 6, 2013, at 8:00 a.m. All members were present except for Jim Wilson. The following items were discussed: ** *Item Requiring Action * ** 1. Carry Forward Request for Design of Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Associated Social Hall The committee unanimously approved a request to carry forward funds in the amount of $403,648 to complete the design of the new Round Hill Fire and Rescue station and associated Social Hall. The attached memorandum references the appropriate line items. (Attachment 1) ** *Items Not Requiring Action * ** 1. Carry Forward Request for Landfill (12 -4204) and Refuse Collection (10 -4203) The committee unanimously approved carry forward requests for the landfill and refuse collection budgets in the amounts of $1,178,000 and $99,061, respectively. These funds are necessary to complete projects initiated and budgeted in Fiscal Year 12/13. Attachments 2 and 3 provide justification and present the appropriate line items. These approvals will be forwarded to the finance committee for their review and action. (Attachments 2 and 3) 2. Design of New Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Associated Social Hall Staff presented a brief overview of the schematic design for the subject facilities. Staff's review comments including those from representatives from the Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station will be incorporated in the design phase. Staff is also working with the Silver Lake Public Works Committee Report Page 2 August 8, 2013 Developers to gain approval of the exterior finish of the proposed structures. 3. Request for Interviews Participation Deputy Director of Public Works, Mr. Joe Wilder, requested that a member of the committee participate in the interviews for selecting an engineering firm to design road /bridges for future cost sharing projects in Frederick County. These interviews will be held on August 14 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The committee members will check their schedules before notifying Mr. Wilder of their availability. 4. Review of PPEA Proposal for New County Office Building Prior to convening into a closed session, the committee listened to a presentation by representatives of the Frederick County Center, LLC regarding the current location and perspective of a new proposed county office building submitted under the PPEA process. The committee then convened into closed session in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Virginia State Code §2.2 -3711. After reconvening from the closed session, the committee members unanimously certified that only the items related to the confidential nature of the PPEA proposal were discussed. 5. Miscellaneous Reports a) Tonnage Report (Attachment 4) b) Recycling Report (Attachment 5) c) Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 6) d) Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 7) Respectfully submitted, Public Works Committee Gene E. Fisher, Chairman David W. Ganse Gary Lofton Whit L. Wagner Robert W. Wells James Wilson By • Harvey E. S wsnyder, Jr., .E. Public Works Director HES /rls Attachments: as stated cc: file ATTACHMENT 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 5401678 -0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Worksl7 Ak SUBJECT: Carry Forward Request Fiscal Year Budget 2012/2013 to Fiscal Year Budget 2013/2014 — New Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and Associated Social Hall Design DATE: August 5, 2013 We are requesting that funds in the amount of $403,648 be carried forward for the ongoing design of the new Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station and associated Social Hall_ These funds should be placed in the Fiscal Year 2013/2014 budget line item 4- 010 - 032030 - 3002 - 000 -000 — Professional Services. Please carry this amount forward for completion of the design phase of the subject project. HES /rls cc: file T:\RHONDA\ BUDGET \CARRYFORWARDS\ROUNDHILLFH& SOCIALHALLDESIGNCARRYFORWARDFYI4 .DOCX ATTACHMENT 2 COUNTY OF FREDERICK LANDFILL 540- 665 -5658 (Phone) 540- 665 -6385 (Fax) MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Steve Frye, Landfill Manag� THROUGH: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Carry Forwards to 2013/2014 DATE: July 29, 2013 We are requesting that the following funds be carried.over. from the 2012/2013 budget into the new 2013/2014 budget. The total amount of this request is $ 1,178,000 and is itemized as follows: • 12- 4204 - 3002 -00 Professional Services We are requesting that $200,000 be carried forward and allocated to line item 12-4204w3002-00 for professional services. These funds will be used for final phase for capping of Permit 40, CDD pump station upgrade and, Landfill to Gas expansion and upgrades. • 12 4204 - 8900 - 00 Improvements Other Than We are requesting that$978,000 be carried forward to complete projects that were planned for 2012/2013 that did not get completed. These projects will include partial closure of,CDD cells (7 acres @ $100,000 /acre), a new equipment building (40X80 @ $40 /sq.ft.) and upgrade pumps /liner (Permit 40 Lagoon). /bin cc: file 107 N. KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 -5000 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. lqeL Director of Public Works FROM: Gloria M. Puffinburger Solid Waste Manager RE: Carryforward Request; FY 12/13 DATE: July 31, 2013 The purpose of this memo is to request that a total of $99,061 be carried forward from Refuse Collection line item 10- 4203 - 8900 -00 (Improvements Other Than Buildings) in the FY 12/13 budget to line item 10- 4203 - 8900 -00 in the FY 13/14 budget. Funds will be used to complete construction of the relocated Gainesboro citizens' convenience site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at Extension 8219. /gmp cc: file ATTACHMENT 4 COUNTY ©f FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works Rel SUBJECT: Monthly Tonnage Report - Fiscal Year 12/13 DATE: July 31, 2013 The following is the tonnage for the months of July 2012, through June 2013, and the average monthly tonnage for fiscal years 02/03 through 11/12. FY 02 -03: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 15,184 TONS (UP 1,177 TONS) FY 03 -04: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 16,348 TONS (UP 1,164 TONS) FY 04 -05: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 17,029 TONS (UP 681 TONS) FY 05 -06: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 17,785 TONS (UP 756 TONS) FY 06 -07: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 16,705 TONS (DOWN 1,080 TONS) FY 07 -08: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 13,904 TONS (DOWN 2,801 TONS) FY 08 -09: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 13,316 TONS (DOWN 588 TONS) FY 09 -10: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 12,219 TONS (DOWN 1,097 TONS) FY 10 -11: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 12,184 TONS (DOWN 35 TONS) FY 11 -12: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 12,013 TONS (DOWN 171 TONS) FY 12 -13: AVERAGE PER MONTH: 12,065 TONS (UP 52 TONS) MONTH FY 2011 -2012 FY 2012 -2013 JULY 12,600 12,596 AUGUST 13,265 13,934 SEPTEMBER 12,140 11,621 OCTOBER 12,091 12,863 NOVEMBER 12,389 12,598 DECEMBER 11,363 10,728 JANUARY 10,545 11,054 FEBRUARY 10,676 9,776 MARCH 12,479 10,636 APRIL 11,366 13,074 MAY 12,688 13,396 JUNE 12,550 12,508 HES /gmp ATTACHMENT 5 JI V (h 00 O) (O O O) lf) m O) (O O) (O O V O O) 00 lf) N 00 00 V 00 V V O) O) 0 O V M (h 0 O V (h (h (h L6 l!) l!) l!) V l!) (h N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O 00 00 I- 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N V 00 O N (O V V I� N N M 0 0) l!) O I- N o m 00 V N O 00 � 0) (f) l!) (O 0) O N O 0) (O - (h - 00 O N O N (O - (O � 00 N O 0 O V 00 0 0) O m N N O 00 I- N O V 0 (O 00 O) V 00 0) O) I- r- O) (f) l!) N M N V O) I- N O N M N V V N (h V N (h O 0 N m � I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O) I- O O V N O N N N 00 O V 00 N V 00 O N 00 (O � I- (D O r- ' (O O) UI l!) N l!) I- V N - V � O O) (h (O (O O) (O I- to V I- 00 00 O (f) W V O 00 0) (O N O (O N (h I- N V I- In V 00 N (h (O N V N J (O V N (h V (h V N (h l!) V l!) O 00 (O (h O O) 00 00 I- In (D In O W l!) V V V V V (h (h N- (O (h O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W I V 00 V N (O O V O N O V V 00 N 00 O J I� [- [- [- (' � O V 0) O) � 00 (O N O H N N (`') N M N N N !) K l W F- 0000000000000000000 O NI (fl V V N N V N N O N I� M N N O N (O 00 (O W O N I- M � O) � I� V M N O N V �_ I- to O N (h - L 00 00 00 (O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O I: M O) I- N O) 00 N N (O O O V (O V O � V l!) � I- (D In 0) N N U (fl (' 00 O V 00 N O) (h I- N 00 V I- 00 (O O) (O (h N U 00 N N N 1- 00 O) O) M M M M 00 O 'IT : 'IT 0 O) (O I- 0 1- 0 1- 1- 0 1- 1- 00 1- 1- V N I� (D V V 00 O 00 00 00 (O l!) l!) V 00 (6 1-00 N N V (O N V 0 (O (O O) (O (O V N M - N � 0 (O I- O O O O to O) O I- (fl N O) M M I- V O N O N O 00 (O (O O) O (h 00 0 O O (O W O) N V O) C c l!) N O) O (O (h 00 00 (O (h 00 I- - - V - N to 0) O O O (O a (h O) O O N (O (f) (`") l!) N N N V l!) 00 V (h N (h O) (O 7 0 0 (h O ( 2 - 0) N (f) V 00 (h 0 � N 00 O) O m O I� 00 N N V 00 O (f) 00 (h O) (f) (h d N V V V�� O) (O (f) � V m V� (O V 00 (O V I- (fl N O O (f) O O O l!) l!) l!) l!) O O l!) (O V (O (O V O (O O N M M M I- to to to to O J N V I� O � O N V I- V O 0) V F W 00 V (O N (f) N l!) l!) V In O) 00 O) r- (fl G O W W Z I (O 00 I- 00 O) 00 O O 00 00 00 r- N O) 00 (O (f) O O) 00 I- M N V N N O) (O V 00 N V � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 l!) l!) l!) O O (O V O V (h (h V 00 l!) I- O In I- r- V I- 'IT (h N O) N O I- (D In (h N M M 00 0) 00 00 N V I- 00 M I- M V (O (O I- (0 O 00 V QI J Z (f) V l!) l!) (O N (h V (O (h (h 0) O 00 00 V I- 00 V V V 00 (f) (h - l!) (h l!) V Q (h V (h (h (h (h V V N V (h m V V N N N l!) N O) O O O O) (h N ONO O O O O W O O O O O O O M O N (O M O O 7 V o O O O) O o O o o N rl V O (O 00 V N 00 (O V N 00 (h N l!) 00 N N N N l!) I- V (O O 7 O 00 N M N M - to 0) 00 r- O (fl to 0) (h (h V (h N 0) I- N N � (fl O N to V V 00 Q M O) N N O) (f) l!) O l!) O) V O 00 00 O N V O O (h V (O 00 I- V (O 71- to J (h V N (h (h N (h (h (h (h (h (h V (h (h (h (h O O O) O) I- V 00 O) I- 00 (h N (D a (I O O 00 00000000 O O 0 O N V I- r- 0 r- O In r- N V 0 00 N V N N 00 N 00 V V (O O m 00 00 I� M 0 0 N O) N 00 V O) O) O I- r- d N V 00 W l!) 0) (O 00 N (O (O � W l!) (h � (O 00 0) V (h l!) W (O N (O V - N - O) I- Z N O) O O) N (h O (O O N (h (h l!) O) (h N V O 00 O) (h O (O N N (f) (h 7 Q (O 00 I- O) 0000 I- 1- 00 0 V N (O O) O LO V V � l!) (h N O 00 I- V O J O) 00 O) I- I- (O In In In V V V V V V (h l!) N -p 0 H J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q) Q) Q) Q) Z J U� a H o U Z m a' m r Z >> W U O W Q W Q a Q� Q N O Z D LL Q O >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- O I LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL H ATTACHMENT 6 co O N N_ O N LL W J W 2 U) J Q Z Q 0 O m W 2 U w Z D O U Y U_ W 0 N W N a. LL H O d W 0 O 0 a� _ W� 0 O Z 0 2 r— O O r— '--t N r— N LO O) 0 0 W�cOr— mr— rnm LnLnMr— r— X W U Z Z W w d Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U � U U W � J Q W D z O N 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 W w D Y 0 W 0 co w L o O `n OM Lo OOr— m W — — — — N N Lo U) 0 0 W 2 Q O O r— M N— M LO M LO M r— _j LO N M M M M N N M M..t U W 0 W 0- M I-- — O (O 1-* LO O Mq-* O M co O Loq-* mm LO Lo M M q-* N LO LO 0 Q Q W Z Z 0 0 0 r- O O O O O O O N O w m V w w (n O— O O O M 0 0 m U N Z_ �_ O U M M M O O M— (O -- M M M M M M M N M LO a � m co o J W w Z > Z — N N (O r—- O N O O (O M N U Y M co M LO W � Q 2 H Z Q Z 0 O Z O r— O O r— - --t N r— N Lo O O Q LL (O M r- M r- O M� LO LOW � Z ~ O U a�_ LL = J O J D w U O w Z w Q w � Q z �QcnOzO�LWD 0 a) c c a) Y o a) 7 7 N O N O (o — 0) to O 0) O L.0 O Q N U d a) U O O L C N O co co a) 0) O C O = ATTACHMENT 7 z 0 L m M N M 00 M LO [-- 04 CO CO N CO 0') r- 0') r- LO o co ---t co — — — co U w Z Z W w d Q D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U � U U W � J a Z N O M — o ff M M M O 0o 0 Z M 0 1-- I-t I-t N — — — I-* LO - W 0 Y 0 W O - ( Dcorn0�LOI��� d N N — — — N U 0 0 W J M N LO o N N 0 co U W O 0 w w W N w 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 O M M M N N N M M co � 0 U Q Q W Z z� co O M O O LO o m � Ow C O V U W W �- U oI-* Nq-* o — — — — M 0 M� m U co Pi 0 LO 0 � N N (O N � r- 04 0 m m 0 J W w Z > z LO I- N I-- M r- � co LO U Y NNN--- �� W ll� Q 2 H z Q Z z CO LO I-- 0') CO N CO 00 00 L Q LL M M CO N CO 0') r- � r- LO o co O N = — — — — — Z O � LL = J Q z J>UZm���ZH ��QcaOzo�LWL<Q�D 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 5401665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John R. Riley, Jr., County Admini DATE: August 7, 2013 RE: Joint Finance Committee Meeting E -mail: jriley@co.frcdcrick.va.us The Joint Finance Committee met on Wednesday, August 7, 2013 at 8:00 A.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Closed Session Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were Chairman Richard Shickle and Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Frederick County representatives; and John Willingham, and Milt Mclnturff, City of Winchester representatives. Others present: John R. Riley, Jr„ County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Dale Iman, City Manager; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney, Anthony Williams, City Attorney; Mary Blowe, Finance Director, City of Winchester; Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director, Frederick County; Jim Deskins, Executive Director of the Winchester Economic Development Authority; Patrick Barker, Executive Director of the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission; Perry Eisenach, Public Services Director; and Matt Armstrong, The Winchester Star. Mr. Shickle called the meeting to order. 'For Board Action * ** JJC IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT Winchester City Manager Dale Iman provided a brief overview of the January 2, 2013 meeting with Judge Wetsel regarding the project and the actions taken to date to get staff input regarding space needs, etc. The RFP was released March 26, 2013 with proposals due May 9, 2013. Interviews of short - listed firms were conducted on June 13, 2013 and Moseley Architects was the selected firm. Mr. Iman stated there would be two tasks to be completed before the project was ready for construction. Task 1 would include a space needs study of the existing building footprint at a price of $50,000. Task 2 would be the completion of the design drawings at a price of $100,000. Upon a motion by Mr. DeHaven, seconded by Mr. Willingham, the committee recommended each governing body appropriate $40,000.00 each to cover the cost of Task 1 with results to be reviewed before final approval of the project. (See attached.) ** *For Information Only * ** OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDING INFORMATION 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 The committee reviewed each locality's funding of outside agency requests. Mr. Shickle advised the Frederick County would be holding a work session with outside agencies on August 22, 2013, He noted no funding would be released to these agencies until after that work session. Mr. Willingham advised the City has started the process of formalizing its arrangements with these groups through the use of memorandums of understanding. Mr. Shickle stated it would be good for this group to get back together at some point after the August 22, 2013 meeting to talk about what Frederick County did, find common ground, etc. Mr. Iman advised the agencies and funding on the City's side has remained status quo. EDC CONTRACT The committee reviewed a proposed draft memorandum of understanding between the City and the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission. (See attached.) Mr. Riley questioned why the EDC was being treated as an outside agency when it was a joint agency established by the County and the City. He wanted to know if other joint agencies (e.g. regional jail, landfill, juvenile detention, etc.) would also be considered outside agencies given the precedent established by this proposed agreement. Mr. Iman advised the City wanted to see a scope of work for the dollars they were providing to the agency, He went on to say the prior draft MOU contained no recognition of the City's EDA and its staff, which also perform certain economic development activities. He stated the City did not want to see redundant services. Mr. Barker, EDC Executive Director, advised that he provided the City with a list of performance measures, which were incorporated in Exhibit B of the proposed agreement. He noted those particular measures constitute only about 25% of what was submitted. The city attorney and county attorney will work together to address the legal components of the agreement. Mr. Barker stated he would prefer to work on a three year average with reference to the proposed performance measures. Mr. Deskins stated he did not have a problem extending the performance measures to a three year average. Mr. McInturff stated "we" have an EDA and the members of council talk about funding the EDC and we seem to be paying two entities for the same work. He stated this agreement and the performance measures was a way for the City to see what the EDC brings to the table for them. Mr. Shickle advised that he had previously asked a representative from the City, when they City did not fund the commission, "why don't you leave the EDCT' He said it would be nice if you all told us if you want to leave. Mr. Willingham stated he thought there was value in what the EDC does and the City has funded it for this year. Mr. Barker stated he felt, under this proposal, the EDC was moving from a partnership to more of a contractor. The city and county attorneys were directed to work on the legal review of the document. The EDA and EDC executive directors were to work on the performance measures to reach agreement on those goals. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m. Executive Summary Request for Proposal No. 201305 — Architectural and Civil Engineering Services for JJC Improvements Description of Work: The services are intended to cover multiple task orders including space planning and conceptual design, final design plans and specifications, and construction assistance. Sequence of Dates: March 26, 2013- Bid Released May 9, 2013 - Proposals Due (seven proposals were received) June 13, 2013 - Interview Short -List Firms (Moseley Architects & Wiley Wilson) July 15, 2013 - Negotiation Completed with No. 1 Firm Participants: Purchasing Agent: Steve Corbit Evaluation Committee: Ed Strawsnyder, Perry Eisenach, Corey MacKnight and Steve Corbit All members were unanimous on the short -list of firms, as well as proceeding forward with negotiations with the No. 1 choice. Non - binding rates were approved as price reasonable by all members. Offerors: BKV Group AECOM KSBA Buchart Horn, Inc. Moseley Architect Crabtree, Rohrbaugh & Assoc. Design Concepts VA Winchp.. ter monomac development Rouss City Hall Telephone: (540) 667 -1815 15 North Cameron Street FAX: (540) 722 -3618 Winchester, VA 22601 TDD: (540) 722 -0782 Website: www.winchesterva.gov MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FUNDING FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES It is the intention of Common Council to ensure that funding of outside agencies is conducted and administered in accordance with the statutory requirements of §15.2 -953 of the Code of Virginia and the intent of Common Council as described in Resolution R- 2013 -30. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into on this 1 8t day of July, 2013, by and between the City of Winchester, VA ( "Grantor") and the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission ( "Recipient "). 1) Qualification for Funding. The application for Funding submitted by Recipient has been reviewed by the Grantor and it is the belief of Common Council that Recipient is eligible to receive donations of public funds from Grantor insofar as Recipient is a nonsectarian, not for profit organization that provides valuable services to the citizens of the City of Winchester through various programs including but not limited to the provision of providing marketing services for the economic benefit of the City. 2) Purpose. The purpose of this agreement between the Grantor and Recipient is to outline the responsibilities of both agencies as it relates to funds authorized by Common Council for use in Recipient's operations, consistent with Recipient's attached request (Exhibit A) that is adopted and incorporated into this MOU by reference as if set forth full herein. 3) Doles and Responsibilities. The Grantor will provide up to $72,000 to be used by the Recipient, with all services to be provided inside the corporate limits of Winchester. 4) No Agency. This MOU contemplates the donation of funds by the Grantor to Recipient consistent with the provisions of §15.2 -953 of the Code of Virginia. Nothing in this document shall be construed to create an employment relationship between the Grantor and Recipient or any of its employees, agents or assigns. At all times, Recipient shall remain an independent agency solely responsible for all acts and omissions of its employees pursuant to any program described in this document and for which funding is provided as described herein. 5) Indemnification /Hold Harmless: The Recipient shall indemnify and hold the City of Winchester harmless from any damages including but not limited to attorney's fees arising from all claims brought by third parties as a result of any act or omission of any employee, agent, or assign of Recipient pursuant to any program described in this document and for which funding is provided as described herein. 6) Reporting Requirements and Special Considerations. "To provide a safe, vibrant, sustainable community while striving to constantly improve the quality of life for our citizens and economic partners. " a) Recipient agrees to provide a detailed accounting of how these funds were expended on December 31 and/or June 30, of each year funding is provided. This information should be forwarded to the City of Winchester Finance Department at 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 to the attention of Celeste Broadstreet, Assistant Finance Director. b) Recipient agrees to also provide the Grantor with a copy of its annual financial audit once completed. c) Recipient agrees to pursue all performance measures described in Exhibit B. 7) Timeframe. The funding for services provided by Recipient from July 1, 2013 until June 30, 2014. 8) Compliance with Terms. The failure of Recipient to provide the services described in this MOU to the complete satisfaction of Common Council and/or the failure to adhere to the reporting, accounting, and other requirements described in this MOU shall result in disqualification from consideration for future funding under this program. 9) Choice of Law /Choice of Venue. This MOU shall be construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any dispute arising as a result of the performance or non - performance of any term of this MOU shall be litigated exclusively in the Winchester Circuit Court. f 0) Severability. If any provision of this MOU is determined to be inconsistent with any lawful authority, the provision shall be deemed stricken from the MOU and all other terms shall remain in full force and effect. 11) Termination I Modification. Common Council may revoke, rescind, or terminate this MOU without cause, notice, or penalty at any time. This MOU, including all exhibits, represents the complete and entire agreement between Grantor and Recipient and may be amended only by written addendum signed by all parties. 12) Subject to Appropriation. All funds referenced in this dccument are subject to appropriation by Common Council at their sole discretion. Common Council may revoke or rescind any and all funds appropriated as described herein at any time without cause, notice or penalty, and may direct that any funds previously appropriated be used for other public purposes in accordance with applicable law. Nothing in this document shall be construed as a guarantee of funding including future funding in subsequent years, nor shall it be construed in any way to bind future City Councils to any particular action. "To provide a safe, vibrant, sustainable community while striving to constantly improve the quality of life for our citizens and economic partners. " 6 This MOU must be signed by all parties. By signing below, signatories pledge that they are duly authorized to sign on behalf of their respective agency and hereby bind said agency to the terms of this MOU. City of Winchester (Grantor) Authorized Official: signature Dale Iman, City Manager Printed Name / Title Address: 15 North Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 540 -667 -1815 E -Mail Address: diman &i.winchester.va.us Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission (Recipient) Authorized Official: Signature Patrick Barker, Executive Director Printed Namerritle Address: 45 E. Boscawen Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 540 -722 -0604 E -Mail Address: pbarkera@winva.com "To provide a safe, vibrant, sustainable community while striving to constantly improve the quality of life for our citizens and economic partners. " 7 CITY OF WINCHESTER OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDING REQUEST BUDGET YEAR FY 2014 On or before December 15, 2012, submit three copies of form and supporting documents which shall include a certified resolution or other official acknowledgment from the agency requesting funding certifying understanding that the failure to meet the outcome goals and objectives described in this document may result in disqualification from future donations to the agency by the City of Winchester to; City of Winchester, 15 North Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 Attention: Assistant Finance Director Agency Requesting Funds: Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission Address: 45 East Boscawen Street Contact Person: Patrick Barker, CEcD Executive Director Phone Number: 540.665.0973 (Name & Title) Email Address: pbarker @winva.com Person authorized to sign contract on behalf of Agency: P at ri ck Barker, CEcD Executive Director (Name and Title) Financial Information Fax Number. 540.722.0604 Phone Number: 540.665.0973 1. Amount of City requested funding FY 2014 (7/1113 — 6130114) $99,756.00 for budget year: 2. Assets (as of June 30, 2012): Cash & Other Equivalents $0.00 3. Fund Balance as of June 30, 2012: Type Amount Restricted $ Unrestricted $0.00 Other $0.00 Total Fund Balance $0.00 4. Funding Sources: (Please indicate actual or anticipated funding sources for the periods specified) Prior Year Current Year Budget Year Funding Source FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Amount Allocated Amount Anticipated Amount Anticipated Frederick County $ 368,936 $ 382,436 $401,921 Publication Sales /Misc $500 $250 $250 Non - Public Income 8 Page 2of13 FY2014- City Budget Reguest: EDC *NOTE_ Please be concise and limit each answer to no more than a third (113) of a single- spaced page using a font size of 11 or larger. Complete sentences in bullet form are desirable. 5. What community need /opportunity is being addressed by your agency /project? In other words, what is missing and how will you fill that gap? What evidence is there that this is a needlopportunity? (use local statistics, if available) Who is your target population? • The Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission (EDC) was formed in 1982 by the City of Winchester and the County of Frederick for the purpose of "fostering an efficient and cooperative effort towards establishing economic development goals and strategies to meet these goals for the Winchester - Frederick County area ". The mission of the EDC is "to facilitate the Winchester - Frederick County community's efforts to create a diverse and strong business base, and to provide accurate and timely data to aid local government in balancing economic growth, conservation of resources, and the generation of revenue for the greater good of our entire citizenry." • Evidence of the need for the EDC is abundantly clear during budgetary times. One of the EDC's functions is to create revenue for its funding entities, like the City of Winchester, to aid the funding for their services, like schools, fire and rescue and police. The City's existing businesses, with its manufacturing sector and large business service employers being of particular focus, are one of our targeted populations with the general citizenry as well. in addition, prospective new businesses; manufacturing, office, business service, and retail, are targeted populations as well. 6. How does your organization propose to meet the described need? (What services, programs, or activities will be provided or implemented... what other groups or organizations do you partner with to meet your objectives.). Please observe space limit. If you want to include additional information, include it in a cover letter or as an attachment. Winchester- Frederick County EDC meets its described need by providing a wide array of information and free, confidential services designed to help American and international businesses locate or expand operations in Winchester and Frederick County. A sample of the services are listed below * Providing existing businesses with retention and expansion programs and services o identifying possible real estate locations in the City /County for new or expanding businesses. o Providing current market information about Winchester, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the regional market.. o Assisting with efforts to open or expand operations by providing information about Winchester and Frederick County's zoning, taxes and other government processes. 2 9 Page 3 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Re guest: EDC • Establishing contact with Winchester and Frederick County government agencies that issue permits and obtain answers to questions that arise. • Providing orientation information for employees relocating to the community. Several organizations partner with the EDC to accomplish this described need, like Winchester City Public Schools, lord Fairfax Community College, and Shenandoah University. 7. If available, what is the evidence of likely success? • As a public funded entity, the EDC takes great care and pride in tracking its success. We have chosen to demonstrate the economic impact to the City of Winchester exclusively through multiple measures from 2010 to present. The measures were derived and verified through a detailed review of internal EDC records and reports. A conservative approach was taken when assembling the information. • New Corporate and Industrial Capital Investment = $116.6 million (note #1) • New Jobs = 540 (note #2) • Retrained Jobs = 538 (note #3) • Estimated Net Return to City = 246% (note #4) Note #1-- The investment figure only reflects those which the EDC had a substantial role in securing for Winchester and does not equate to all the investment made by City businesses since 2010. The EDC's role varied by the business and their needs. Note #2 —The job figure only reflects those which the EDC had a substantial role in securing for Winchester and does not equate to all the jobs created by City businesses since 2010. The EDC's role varied by the business and their needs. Note #3 — The jab figure only reflects those which the EDC had a substantial role in securing for Winchester and does not equate to all the jobs retrained by City businesses since 2010. The EDC's role varied by the business and their needs. Note #4 — The estimated net return was determined by calculating the estimated revenue generated from the investments made by City businesses with substantial EDC involvement, then the City contribution to the EDC from FY09 -11 and incentives were subtracted. 8. Please describe methods you use to make sure the programs /services are accessible to all citizens of Winchester (consistent with your mission and purpose) • Our website, winva.com, provides an excellent vehicle for citizens of Winchester to access information about the EDC's programs and services. All services are provided at no charge, with limited exceptions. If a citizen would like to visit our office, we are located along the public transit system and have an elevator to our floor. 10 Page 4of13 PY2014- City Budget Request: EDC 9. Why should the City provide funding to this agencylproject? In other words, how does this project/service benefit the City? • The City should fund the EDC as it is during tough economic times that the work done by the EDC is more important than ever. The EDC assists to secure jobs and investment for the City of Winchester. As such, the EDC presents three critical factors for consideration during the budget process. 1. Over 240% net return to City of Winchester since FY09 -11 from EDC projects; Investment in EDC is critical now, more than ever, to maintain our short -term and long- term economic health; 3. If Winchester can stay in the game of economic development, it will likely faceless competition and have increased opportunities as other communities cut their economic development activities. 10. What are the consequences if the City does not fund this request? • By not funding this request, the City could create some challenges in securing and retaining jobs and business investment, thus diminishing the probability for additional revenue for critical City services. Small businesses would also most likely receive little, if any, assistance from a non- funding decision. The EDC provides operational monies to the Lord Fairfax Small Business Development Center. 11. If approved, this funding is only for the current budget cycle. What is your strategy for replacing these funds in the future? • EDC has limited, if any, options to replace any funding not provided by the City of Winchester. Frederick County, the EDC's fiscal agent and primary funding source, has provided static funding this past two years after three years of reduction. Corporate fundraising is perhaps not a feasible option given the current economic climate and requirement of extensive staff time. 12. If this is a change in the amount requested from previous years, please explain the reason for the change. • No change kE Page 5 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Request: EDC 13. What are your outcome objectives for the funding period? How will this be measured? (Describe how your organization proposes to make a measurable and achievable difference in the city, e.g. changes in behavior, situations, conditions, or knowledge. Who /what will be changed and how ?) Strategic goal(s) for the next year How goals will be measured Projected Results Continue to work with the Manufacturing Number of cluster meetings 5 Industry Cluster Task Forces to identify current trends and issues for action by Attendance at cluster meetings 254 EDC and to develop strategies for needs annually assessments for each cluster. Continue to identify and implement Jobs created /retrained /retained by 411 appropriate workforce development existing industries with wages above initiatives malting modifications as the community average wage appropriate for changing labor conditions and skill levels required to encourage Change in unemployment rate for 4% existing industry expansions. workforce draw Maintain the Industrial Call Team visits Number of visits performed 86 made to existing industries. Identify the appropriate follow -up to find solutions for Request for assistance to securing 6:1 specific needs. expansion ratio Increase in capital expenditures for $128.8 million machinery, tools and equipment in existing industries Jobs created /retained 479 Change in E- Sychronist's indexes varies Carry out year -round business recognition Media exposure of recognition 24 expo sures program which provides exposure and activities (print, radio, appreciation to the business base in the tv) community through a regular recognition communication program with the local media. 12 Page 6 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Request: EDC Strategic goal(s) for the next year How goals will be measured Projected Results Increase employer, student, teacher and Career Awareness Tours guidance counselor participation in the participation levels Career Awareness tours. - Employers 20 - Students 471 - Guidance Cou nselors/Teachers 131 Enhance communication between our Participation in VIP tours 63 educators and our business leaders. Improve the general public's awareness of CareerAwareness Tours career opportunities available locally. participation levels - Employers 20 - Student 400 - Guidance Counselors/Teacher 65 Evaluation by participants of Career Multiple Awareness Campaign Number of community 6 presentations Communicate consistently with corporate Direct communication successes 3 headquarters of manufacturing cluster employers. On -site visits with corporate HQ 3 Provide electronic access to resources and Unique visitors spent on EDC's 6,500 services to support business development flagship website's business resource and expansion. sections. Promote awareness of job availability Unique visitors spent on cost of 700 locally and actual cost of commute to commuting awareness website. Northern Virginia to the community's commuters. Increased assistance to area's start -up and Business consulted through Lord 188 existing small businesses. Fairfax Small Business Development Center i 13 Page 7 of 13 PY2014- City Budget Request: EDC Strategic goal(s) for the next year How goals will be measured Projected Results Generate revenue to funding localities. Net return of investment to funding 300% localities. Stay true to community's economic Greater percentage of operating 51% development brand. dollars to existing business program versus new business development program Continue to utilize Hoover's database, a Number of identified companies 200 too[ to pre - qualify companies for marketing. Continued revision, analysis and Number of revisions to EDC's 52 marketing of websites. flagship website Enhance the website ranking on major Ranking of Googie, Yahoo, MSN for Top 10 search engines. selected keywords Regularly engage sources of new business number of new business inquiries 100 prospects. Balance the proportion of commercial and Ratio of Commercial/Industrial 25% industrial real estate tax base for both the taxable base to total city and county. Inquiries to Visit ratio 8:1 Visit to Location ratios 3 Increase worker skills to remain Number of jobs retrained through 411 competitive as a business location. Virginia Job Investment Program Build on the existing industry and business Value of Capital Investment by new $128.8 million base by attracting new companies, which businesses provide services and products as identified through the Existing Business Number of new jobs 479 Development Program. New business visits to location ratio 3:1 14 Page 8 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Request: EDC Strategic goal(s) for the next year How goals will be measured Projected Results Sustain the community's proactive Number of community 6 business development voice. presentations Number of media captures 24 exposures (print, radio, tv) Continue to educate the public and Number of community 6 government leaders on the need for presentations consistency and commitment to a Number of media captures 24 exposures proactive business development presence. (print, radio, tv) Provide services and information to Unique visitors and length of time 6,500 businesses who assess Winchester- spent on EDC's flagship website's Frederick County as a business location. sites and building section 15 Page 9 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Request: EDC History of results Strategic goal(s) for the next year Measurement Projected Actual Results Results Continue to work with the Manufacturing Number of cluster 5 7 Industry Cluster Task Forces to identify meetings current trends and issues for action by 250 382 EDC and to develop strategies for needs Attendance at cluster assessments for each cluster. meetings annually Continue to identify and implement Jobs 411 524 appropriate workforce development created /retrained /retaine initiatives making modifications as d by existing industries appropriate for changing labor conditions with wages above the and skill levels required to encourage community average wage. existing industry expansions. Change in unemployment 4% 5.3% rate for workforce draw Maintain the Industrial Call Team visits Number of visits 86 65 made to existing industries. Identify the performed appropriate follow -up to find solutions for specific needs. Request for assistance to 6 :1 6:1 securing expansion ratio Increase in capital $128.8 million $181.4 expenditures for million machinery, tools and equipment in existing industries 479 776 Jobs created /retained Change in E- Sychronist's varies varies indexes, value, growth potential, risk, satisfaction, and technology adoption Carry out year -round business recognition Media exposure of 24 exposures 25 program which provides exposure and recognition activities (print, radio, tv) exposures appreciation to the business base in the (print, community through a regular recognition radio, tv) communication program with the local media. 16 Page 10 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Request: EDC Strategic goal (s) for the next year Measurement Projected Actual Results Results Increase employer, student, teacher and Career Awareness Tours guidance counselor participation in the participation levels Career Awareness tours. - Employers 20 24 - Student 471 471 - Guidance 131 216 Counselors/Teacher Enhance communication between our Participation in VIP tours 63 87 educators and our business leaders. Improve the general public's awareness of Career Awareness Tours career opportunities available locally. participation levels - Employers 20 20 - Student 471 471 - Guidance 131 216 Counselors/Teacher Evaluation by participants of Career Awareness Multiple Multiple Campaign Number of community 6 4 presentations Communicate consistently with corporate Direct communication 3 4 headquarters of manufacturing cluster successes employers. On -site visits with 2 3 corporate HQ Provide electronic access to resources and Unique visitors on EDC's 6,500 6,434 services to support business development flagship website's and expansion, business resource sections Promote awareness of job availability Unique visitors on cost of 700 675 locally and actual cost of commute to commuting awareness Northern Virginia to the community's website commuters. 10 17 Page 11 of 13 FY2014 -City Budget Request: EDC Strategic goal(s) for the next year Measurement Projected Actual Results Results Increased assistance to area's start-up and Business consulted 188 202 existing small businesses. through Lord Fairfax Small Business Development Center Generate revenue to funding localities. Net return of investment 300% 246% (city to funding localities value) Stay true to community's economic Greater percentage of 51% 62.1% development brand. operating dollars to existing business program versus new business development Continue to utilize Hoover's database, a Number of identified 200 362 tool to pre - qualify companies for companies marketing. Continued revision, analysis and Number of revisions to 52 63 marketing of websites. EDC's flagship website Enhance the website ranking on major Ranking of Google, Top 10 Within top search engines. Yahoo, MSN for selected 10 key words Regularly engage sources of new business Number of new business 100 362 prospects. inquiries Balance the proportion of commercial and Ratio of 25% 35.4% industrial real estate tax base for both the Commercial/industrial city and county. taxable base to total Inquiries to Visit ratio 8:1 7:1 Visit to Location ratios 3:1 2:1 Increase worker skills to remain Number of jobs retrained 411 524 competitive as a business location. through Virginia Job Investment Program 11 18 Page 12 of 13 FY2014- City Budget Request: EDC Strategic goal(s) for the next year Measurement Projected Actual Results Results Build on the existing industry and business Value of Capital $128.8 million $181.4 base by attracting new companies, which Investment by new mill provide services and products as identified businesses through the Existing Business 479 776 Development Program. Number of new jobs 3:1 2:1 New business visits to location ratio Sustain the community's proactive Number of community 6 4 business development voice. presentations Number of media 24 exposures 25 captures. (print, radio, tv) exposures (print, radio, tv) Continue to educate the public and Number of community 6 5 government leaders on the need for presentations consistency and commitment to a Number of media 24 exposures 25 proactive business development presence. captures. (print, radio, tv) exposures (print, radio, tv) Provide services and information to Unique visitors on EDC's 6,500 6,367 businesses who assess Winchester- flagship website's sites Frederick County as a business location. and building section 12 19 Exhibit B This attachment references the contribution made by the City of Winchester to the Winchester - Frederick County Economic Development Commission. Per the MOU signed by the Grantor and the Recipient, the Recipient must pursue the performance measures and their annual average listed below. Also, the executive director of the recipient must provide quarterly reports to Jim Deskins, Executive Director of the Winchester Economic Development Authority for performance review. This comprehensive set of performance measures will identify the overall performance and effectiveness of the Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission. The collective list of performance measures along with the annual average are below: • Jobs Retrained — 60 annually This is a joint program between the Virginia Jobs Investment Program and the Lord Fairfax Community College Division of Workforce Services. Together they provide funding and training for various workforce development needs. Virginia Job Investment Program Funding Secured - $5+6,666 annually The Virginia Jobs Investment Program (VJIP) is one of Virginia's most actively used economic development incentives. The program encourages the expansion of existing Virginia businesses and start-up of new business operations in Virginia. It specifically addresses the top concerns of existing businesses and economic development prospects — finding and developing a skilled workforce. VJIP exists to support private sector job creation. It helps offset recruiting and training costs incurred by companies that are either creating new jobs or implementing technological upgrades. In addition to offering direct funding, VJIP also provides assistance with workforce - related challenges and organizational development workshops Call Team. Visits to City Manufacturing Businesses — 5 annually Call Team Assistance Request by City Manufacturing Businesses —1 annually The EDC utilizes a seven - person business call team, comprised of retired business executives. The executives call on area industries on a rotational basis, conducting surveys and reporting back to the EDC. The data reporting provided by Call Team members allows the EDC to access the overall health of industry sectors and recognize changing industry trends. Call Team visits also allow the EDC to become aware of expansion opportunities early in the process, helping the EDC to facilitate financial or workforce training assistance when possible. Call Team data is then placed into E- Synchronist, analytical software devised specifically for evaluating existing businesses. The software is used to organize, analyze, and report company information obtained during Call Team visits, giving the community invaluable insight into the dynamics of the local economy. This information is instrumental in maintaining an environment where existing businesses can grow and expand. Cluster Evaluation Meeting {Businesses utilizing information presented — 5 annually The EDC operates a comprehensive existing business cluster program geared towards the Winchester community's advanced manufacturing industries. Business leaders come together every other month to discuss a topic of interest in manufacturing. The cluster program is not a sales program. It is simply a platform for leaders in industry to come together and discuss topics that are relevant across their industries. The cluster program has led to cost savings in area industries, new business partnerships, and even an innovative equipment sharing relationship. • Proactive Marketing Contacts — Attend 11 Trade Shows Annually "To provide a safe, vibrant, sustainable community while striving to constantly improve the quality of life for our citizens and economic partners. " 20 EDC Trade Show Calendar July Year in Review Mailer SS /CRE SuppiierProject August Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Aug 12 -15 - exhibits only Washington DC Supplier Project Se - pternber Pack Expo, Sept 23 -25 Chicago Supplier Project October Consultant Roundtable, Oct 14- 17 Tucson AZ November December January February Private Label Manufacturers Website Healthcare Information and Association, Nov 17 -19 Management Systems Society, Chicago Visit Mailer Feb 23 -27 Orlando FL Alternate- PowerGen Chicago SS /CRE- 11112-14 Medical Design & Update Manufacturing West /Automation Technology Consultants Forum, Dec 5 -10 Expo West, Feb 11 -13 Charleston Anaheim CA SPIE, Feb 4 -6 San Francisco March April May June Laboratory Science Interphex, May 6 -8 Biotechnology Industry Equipment Conference, NY, NY Organization Olnternational, March 2 -6 June 23 -26 San Diego CA Chicago MidGame Mailer Alternate- National Association Alternate- PromotAtlanta Alternate- Nonotech DC5112- Of Manufacturers Annual 3117-20 16 Summit DC 6119 -20 • Proactive Marketing Contacts (MidGarne) — 23 annually • Career Awareness Tours City Manufacturing Total — 2 annually • Career Awareness Tours Student Totals — 20 annually • Career Awareness Tours Manufacturing Evaluation - 80% annually • Career Awareness Tours Student Evaluation. — 63 annually The Career Program is a comprehensive initiative to maintain a viable future workforce. The program seeks to educate students, teachers, counselors and workforce development allies about the careers available in Winchester County and the necessary education, skills, and curriculum pathway needed to support the community's existing businesses. "To provide a safe, vibrant, sustainable community while striving to constantly improve the quality of life for our citizens and economic partners. 21 PkIl IS 19, pp �y y { [ �� L J aAegY 1 June 14, 2013 Mr. John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 North Kent St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Riley, Attached please find Rene Grove's permit application and ABC license for this year's Wine Festival on Saturday September 7 from 10am to 5pm. Please note that all arrangements will be the same as last year. Many thanks for assistance. Sincerely, Ric and Coyl Program istant Belle Grove, Inc. P.O. Box 537 e Middletown, VA 22645 (540)869 -2028 • (540)869 -9638 FAX Web: www.bellegrove.or-e • E -mail: info@belleerove.00r Belle Grove is an historic site of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Headquarters Office: 1785 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. • Washington, DC 20036 e (202)588 -6000 APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant: EL4 - — Telephone Number(s): ❑ homeice ❑ cell ❑ home ❑ office ❑ cell Address: 1 FESTIVAL EVENT ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION Festiv Ev ent. Name of Festival: `r n 0 Cost of Admission to Festival: �_ Business License Obtained: Xyes ❑ No Start End Maximum No. Estimated No. Date Time Time of Tickets Offered of Attendees For Sale Per Day Per Day Location Address: , Owner Name(s): of Property Address: 1-� -. ( *NOTE: Applicant may he required to provide a statement or other documentation indicating consent by the owner(s) for use of the property and related parking for the festival.) Promoter Name(s): Address: (*NoTE: For festivals other than not - for - profit, promoter may need to check with the Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue to determine compliance with County business license requirements; in addition, promoters who have repeat or ongoing business in Virginia may be required to register with the VA State Corporation Commission for legal authority to conduct business in Virginia.) Financial Name(s): Sacker Address: Performer Name of Person(s) or Group(s): � 12 ( - NoTE: Applicant may need to update information as performers are booked for festival event.) 1. Attach a copy of the printed ticket or badge of admission to the festival, containing the dates) and time(s) of such festival (may be marked as "sample "). Q copy attached OR t copy to be provided as soon as available 2. Provide a plan for adequate sanitation facilities as well as garbage, trash, and sewage disposal for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the VA Department of Health ,(Lord Fairfax Health District). o _ t _ 3. Provide a plan for providing food, water, and lodging for the persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the VA Department of Health (Lord Fairfax Health District). 4. ` 1 s V' F r � S. Provide a plan for adequate fire protection. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and rescue comnanv. a 4' 6. Provide a plan for adequate parking facilities and traffic control in and around the festival area. (A diagram may be submitted.) 7. State whether any outdoor lights or lighting will be utilized: ❑ YES VNO If yes, provide a plan or submit a diagram showing the location of such lights an the roximity relative to the property boundaries and neighboring properties. In addition, show the location of shielding devices or other equipment to be used to prevent unreasonable glow beyond the property on which the festival is located. 8. State whether alcoholic beverages will be served: ES ❑ NO If yes, provide details on how it will be contro Zed. (NOTE: Evidence of any applicable VA ABC permit must also be provided and posted at the festival as required. Applicant may need to confirm with the VA ABC that a license is not required from that agency in order for festival attendees to bring their own alcoholic beverages to any event that is open to the general public upon payment of the applicable admission fee.) Provide a plan for adequate medical facilities for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and rescue company, Applicant makes the following statements: A. Music shall not be rendered nor entertainment provided for more than eight (8) hours in any twenty -four (24) hour period, such twenty -four (24) hour period to be measured from the beginning of the first performance at the festival. B. Music shall not be played, either by mechanical device or live performance, in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom exceeds 73 decibels at the property on which the festival is located. C. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age shall be admitted to any festival unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian to remain with such person at all times. (NOTE: It may be necessary to post signs to this effect.) D. The Board, its lawful agents, and /or duly constituted law enforcement officers shall have permission to go upon the property where the festival is being held at anytime for the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of the County ordinance. I, the undersigned Applicant, hereby certify that all information, statements, and documents provided in connection with this Application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, Applicant agrees that the festival event and its attendees shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick County ordinance pertaining to festivals as well as the festival provisions contained herein. Date: 4Q ' � � r z - Signature Applicant THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE ANY PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE UPON NON - COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS. V/Wtsc V IRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROr? 2901 Hermitage Road - P 0 Box 27491 - Richmond VA 23266 -7493 License Number: ABC BAN ®.1 T LICENSE 42257 V Lleense 2 :ype: Banquet Special Event (Per Bay) Bun#aet Event Daziw 09/07/2013 Banquet Nome & Event Address RICHARD H COYLE BELLE GROVE, INC BELLE GROVE PLANTATION 336 BELLE GROVE RD. MIDIDLETOWN, VA 22645 Frederick Couray - Temitor) #30 Staunton - 'Region 3 (346) 332 - 7800 :State Lerenre Fee Paid' S40 00 By Order ofAleoholie Beverage Control Board it/. g -<e e Secretary 1118trtli;ttians for OPerAting tinder a Bangttet Lizent the privileges of this license are hereby granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to the Licensee named above to operate in accordance with the terms of the I icense herein designated and the applicable statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and regulations of the Board, 1 Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverage to any person who you know of have reason to believe is intoxicated and do not allow anv alcohol beveragc to be consumed by such a person in auendance a€ your banquet, Do not allow any person who you know or have reason to believe is iruoxtculcd to loiter upon your licensed area. Arr person who has drunk enough alcoholic beverages to affect his manner, disposition, speech, muscular movements, general appearance or behavior, as to be apparent to observation shall be deemed to be intoxicated - 2. Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverage to any person who you know or have reason to believe is less than 21 years of agc and do not allow any alcoholic beverage to be consumed by such a person in afteuilaoce at your banquet. 3. Do not allow any forth of illegal gambling to take place during your banquet. 4. Do Hirt pwse4s any illegal guml inn uppusotvv, Mi Chlnz or 001ica apart yptlr licensed premises. 5, Do not bo tnnativawd or under ibf idlluenre of a se:f adminlstered drug during your banquet, 6. Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverages on your licensed area during restricted hours. 7..Mixed Beverages under a ?nixed Beverage Special Fvent License must be purchased from a state ABC Store. B. Do not purchase alcoholic beverages from licensed wholesalers except on the day of the banqueL For those functions held on Saturday or Sunday, purchase may be mate on Friday. Payment must be made in cash or a valid check drawn upon a home account in the name of the licensee or in the name of the group sponsoring the banquet- Each invoice most be signed by the purchasing licensee or his duly authorized agent. 9. Licensed wholesalers may supply, at a reasonable wholesale price, paper or plastic cups upon which advertising matter regarding beer or wine may appeat. 10. Alcoholic beverages to be given away may be purchased from retail establishments. I I . Do not sell, give away or allow the coaswnption of alcoholic beverage in any portion or your licensed area that has not been approved by the Board. (NOTE', Violation of this instruction could result in arrest for Drinking in Public.) Alcoholic beverages must be confined to the building, room or general area fin which the license is issued. 12. Igo not nliow arty° person whn is lLm than 1 N yvays of ace to sell, t eRv or disperme beer, RICHARD H COYLE BELLE GROVE, INC 736 JENNINGS LA BENTONVILLE VA 22610 The tivense privilege rs strictly for on prcmises: stile ztwos'�omummton of alcoholic bevel p) at the address ofevcnt COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA. FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT I080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, VA 22602 John J. $auserman Captain Fire Marshal Life Safety Division MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Price County Administrator's Office FROM; Jay Bauserman Fire Marshal 4 1 SUBJECT: Festival Permit: Belle Grove Plantation EGEIVE� JUL 2013 s �desiGk s��L';S"i}� „.F. r7L1 SfSai Q 1Cn CSI DATE: July 30, 2013 After reviewing the Outdoor Festival Permit Application for the Belle Grove Wine Festival to be held at Belle Grove Plantation, 336 Belle Grove Road, the Frederick County Fire Marshal's Office has no objections to the event scheduled for September 7, 2013. Tents greater than 900sq.ft. will require permitting and inspections by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. Life Safety (540) 665 - 6350 0 jbauserm @co,frederick.va.us 0 Fax (540) 678 -4739 i Name of Applicant: _ Telephone Number(s)- Address:`l�G APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA APPLICANT INFORMATION ❑ home ❑ office [cell ❑ home 13 off ❑ cell �V 3 54 1 FESTIVAL EVENT ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMA77ON Festival Event Name of Festival: C 1 C-rsl ( i �L M(Ya -,v A Cost of Admission to Festival: Business License Obtained: ❑ Yes No Start Date(s) End Maximu No. Estimated No. Time of Tickets Offered Time of Attendees For Sate Per Day Per Day Location Address: ' t� `5 L 40 �l �� Owner Name[s): ve-6 of Property Address: ( Applicant may be required to provide a statement or other documentation indicating consent by the owners) for use of the property and related parking for the festival.) Promoter Name(s): t S ` 5 r Address: 14 rCL . f * NOTE: For festivals other than not for - profit, promoter may need to check with the Frederick county commissioner of Revenue to determine compliance with County business license requirements; In addition, have promoters who repeat orongoing business In Virginia maybe required to register with the VA State Corporation Commission for legal authority to conduct business in Virginia.) Financial Name(s): Backer Address: Performer Name of Person(s) or Group(s 0 Dl (`NOTE: Applicant may need to update information as performers are booked for festival event.) I FESTIVAL EVENT LOGISTICS INFORMATIONAND DOCUMENTATION I L Attach a copy of the printed ticket or badge of admission to the festival, containing the date(s) and time(s) of such festival (may be marked as "sample"). ❑ copy attached OR t copy to be provided as soon as available 2. Provide a plan for adequate sanitation facilities as well as garbage, trash, and sewage disposal for persons at the festival, This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved, by the VA Department of Health (Lor Fairfax Health District). , 3. Provide a plan for providing food, water, and lodging for the persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the VA Department of Health (Lord Fairfax Health District). _ 4. Provide a plan for adequate medical facilities for persons at the festival. This plan must meetthe requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal an the local fire and rescue company. ^ 5. Provide a plan for adequate fire protection. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and rescue comoanv. 6. Provide a plan for adequate parking facilities and traffic control in and around the festival area. (A diagram may be submitted.) ax G J - , 5 7. State whether any outdoor lights or lighting will be utilized: ❑ YES -0 If yes, provide d�h a plan or submit a diagram showing the location of such lights ane proximity relative to the property boundaries and neighboring properties. In addition, show the location of shielding devices or other equipment to be used to prevent unreasonable glow beyond the property on which the festival Is located. 8. State whether alcoholic beverages will be served: ❑ YES -10 If yes, provide details on how it will be controlled, (NOTE: Evidence of any applicable VA ABC permit must also be provided and posted at the festival as required. Applicant may need to confirm with the VA ABC that a license Is not required from that agency in order for festival attendees to bring their awn alcoholic beverages to any event that is open to the general public upon payment of the applicable admission fee.) FESTIVAL PROVISIONS Applicant makes the following statements: A. Music shalt not be rendered nor entertainment provided for more than eight (8) hours in any twenty-four (24) hour period, such twenty-four (24) hour period to be measured from the beginning of the first performance at the festival. B. Music shall not be played, either by mechanical device or live performance, in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom exceeds 73 decibels at the property on which the festival is located. C. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age shall be admitted to any festival unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian to remain with such person at all times. (NOTE: It may be necessary to post signs to this effect.) D. The Board, its lawful agents, and /or duly constituted law enforcement officers shall have permission to go upon the property where the festival Is being held at anytime for the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of the County ordinance. CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned Applicant, hereby certify that all information, statements, and documents provided in connection with this Application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, Applicant agrees that the festival event and its attendees shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick County ordinance pertaining to festivals as well as the festival provisions contained herein. Date: _�D Qq�� N Signature of Applicant THE BO ARD SHALL HAVE THE RIGHTTO REVOKE ANY PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS, June 24, 2013 To Whom It May Concern: I wanted to provide you with more information regarding our application for an outdoor festival. ® Grove's Harley Davidson has agreed to allow us to use their parking lot and lawn area for parking. They have also given us permission to utilize their restroom facilities and garbage collection. ® There will not be a fee for those that just want to come and look at the motorcycles. We are charging $20.00 to enter a motorcycle into the show and $20.00 for a single rider /$30.00 for a double for the ride portion. ® We are waiting on approval prior to committing to a food vendor. I have email several companies to see if they have the ability to be a free standing vendor with on -site cooking options, Something similar to what you would find at a fair. As far as entertainment, I wanted to wait until we got approval before we hired anyone. I have also contacted radio stations regarding live broadcasts. Qur plan is to begin setting up for the event around 0730 on that Saturday morning, Registration will begin around 0830. Festivities will conclude around 1700 and then clean up will begin. I'm not sure what other informatibn provide at this point. I will be out of town for the July 10 meeting but our team captain, Kell! H6nry, will be there. If there is anything else I can help you with prior to the meeting, please let me know. Thank you so much for your time, Monica Smith ' On behalf of Team Scrub 540*539 *4733 monica.w.smithl@gmail.com t t . COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VTRGINIA FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT «s 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, VA 22602 John J. Bauserman Captain Fire Marshal ,r Life Safety Division I L A MEMORANDUM ECEIVED JIL 0 TO: Teresa Price n Fmd Ily County Administrator's Office rr t � s ��� FROM: Jay Bauserman t Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Festival Permit: onica Smith I Relay for Life at Grove's Winchester Harley- Davidson DATE: July 30, 2013 After reviewing the Outdoor Festival Permit Application for Ms. Smith / Relay for Life at Grove's Harley- Davidson, located at 140 Independence Drive, the Frederick County Fire Marshal's Office has no objections to the event scheduled for September 28, 2013. Tents greater than 900sq.ft, will require permitting and inspections by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. Life Safety (540) 865 - 6350 • jbauserm @co.frederick.va.us 0 Fax (540) 578 -4739 0 APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR FESTIVAL PERMIT COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA APPLICANT `!N!~ORMATION Name of Applicant: 4 Telephone Number(s D 1L 30 ❑ home i ce ❑ cell ❑ home ❑ office ❑ cell Address: P 0 S6- ,'c� eat I`a., �.►�� �m i re.. t s ,�� FESTIVAL EVENT ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION. Prohioter. Name(s): _,0 Ae_ ,p,rn a"A L f em. Address: try. a0 ,3a �•.�°��,� CIO® { * NOTE: For festivals other than not - for - profit, promoter may need to check with the Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue to determine compliance with County business license requirements; in addition, promoters who have repeat or ongoing business in Virginia may be required to register with the VA State Corporation Commission for legal authority to conduct business in Virginia.) Firfandal Name(s): CO3r o.-*A a �.vark s.r,a pi v, �c._ l d d►o �-� Banker Address: Performer'., Name of Person(s) or Group(s): ACW �i�.r k� P.r 0 e,r��� } [� er ('NOTE: Applicant may need to update information as performers are booked for festival event.) M FESTIVAL EVENT LOGISTICS INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION . 1. Attach a copy of the printed ticket or badge of admission to the festival, containing the date(s) and time(s) of such festival (may be marked as "sample "). P attached OR ❑ copy to be provided as soon as available 2. Provide a plan for adequate sanitation facilities as well as garbage, trash, and sewage disposal for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the VA Depart ent of Health (Lord Fairfax Health istrict). 3. Provide a plan for providing food, water, and lodging for the persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the VA ealth (Lord Fairfax Health District). Department o4 ea, (e �2ea. IIAv 4. Provide a plan for adequate medical facilities for persons at the festival. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and rescue company. q } 1 5. Provide a plan for adequate fire protection. This plan must meet the requirements of all state and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and must be approved by the County Fire Chief or Fire Marshal and the local fire and + rescue company. 6 ( T l '% — S' — c}' L .e f- ' 6. Provide a plan for adequate parking facilities and traffic control in and around the festival area. (A diagram may be submitted.) i A-V 19r° Are �, t✓ 6FS - 1 °or a 0 ° —0 s a ow ep ej A 7. State whether any outdoor lights or lighting will be utilized: ES d NO If yes, provide a plan or submit a diagram showing the location of such lights and the proximity relative to the property boundaries and neighboring properties. In addition, show the location of shielding devices or other equipment to be used to prevent unreasonable glow beyond the property on P hich the festival is located. : �.-+ SU'i i.o'...`E r-� dwA k Ie LA--, Do 0 e- d et-- e,4 s& ' 8. State whether alcoholic beverages will be served: ICES ❑ NO If yes, provide details on how it will be controlled. [ + J -9c OC'.$'c. 00 rte. i. f .e- sc'.YIA1 U6 410 rlGf.,sc. is ✓ v id-G f' e1 d d Lo e�o (NOTE: Evidence of any applicable A ABC permit must also be provided and posted af the festival as required, Ap licant may need to confirm with the VA ABC that a license is not required from that agency in order for festival attendees to bring their own alcoholic beverages to any event that is open to the general public upon payment of the applicable admission fee.) M F�srrvat ��oursroNS Applicant makes the following statements: A. Music shall not be rendered nor entertainment provided for more than eight (8) hours in any twenty -four (24) hour period, such twenty-four (24) hour period to be measured from the beginning of the first performance at the festival. B. Music shall not be played, either by mechanical device or live performance, in such a manner that the sound emanating therefrom exceeds 73 decibels at the property on which the festival is located. C. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age shall be admitted to any festival unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, the parent or guardian to remain with such person at all times. (NOTE: It may be necessary to post signs to this effect.) D. The Board, its lawful agents, and /or duly constituted law enforcement officers shall have permission to go upon the property where the festival is being held at any time for the purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of the County ordinance. CERTlFlC�1 TlQN I, the undersigned Applicant, hereby certify that all information, statements, and documents provided in connection with this Application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. in addition, Applicant agrees that the festival event and its attendees shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick County ordinance pertaining to festivals as well as the festival provisions contained herein. 2 =��� %�'3 ki C'_� Signature of Applicant Date: 1-)S- 13 THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE ANY PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE UPON NON - COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS. LORD FAIRFAX HEALTH DISTRICT APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EVENT FOOD PERMIT THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL HEALTH DEPAR rMENT IO DA YS PRIOR TO THE EVENT Health Department Use Only Date Scamp Fee submitted with application? . ❑ Cash [:]Credit Card ❑ Check number Amount Receipt submitted with application? ❑ Yes ❑ No Receipt number NAME OF EVENT Ga; m e r, - -_ W & A t}Y"t- pr 6-c y -'ft U. j • ! EVENT LOCATION 0.7" F U u * l ar, DATE(S) OF OPERATION: •• REQUESTED TIME FOR HEALTH INSPECTION: I �� A.M. /P.M. EVENT TME: P.M. TO M. / .M> M.. NAME OF VENDOR/ORGANIZATION: b tv� 1 CONTACT PERSON: fi MAILING ADDRESS PHONE: HOME Z , 5 - g6 &'s - - /G -3� WORK: 1.E 1 {E • `!G -- 'CELL: FAX: EMAIL: FACILTTYTYPE: ❑ Building on site [jYMobile unit ❑ Push cart Tent(Stand ❑ Trailer ❑ Other R11 food preparation, display, and storage areas must have an approved overhead covering. DurableJlooring recommended. WATER SUPPLY: aPublic- Namd `1FXAie , G Private- ❑Well ❑Other [j ( (If private, a water quality test result maybe required.) / GRAY WATER DISPOSAL METHOD: eA y+ ^�u u-r, -lr'fs -J PI TRASH DISPOSAL METHOD f iIIi - CA 1YS�e �uet�S yc r ICE PROVIDER SOURCE: .� C- TOIL> I FACILITY TYPE: DESCRIBE HAND WASHING METHODS tfrmldp.sp$ b s1r�'6+Ce� SAA-P 1{-�w -+, �re oq)e� j+ [,OBIT. SEnre� [C.& SOAP, RUNNING WATER OR COOLER WITH SPO[Jr, PAPER TOWELS, CATCH BASIN) - NOTE: HAND SANrr NOT AN ACCEPTABLE HAND WASHING METHOD. DESCRIBE METHOD OF CLEANING " � g� g tl R e 66 ,5A.e ik Z.f-- AND SANITIZING EQUIPMENT & l UTENSILS (THREE BASINS) [TYPE OF SANITIZER TO BE USED] DESCRIBE COOKING METHOD AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED. [MUST HAVE METAL STEM THERMOMETER) DESCRIBE HOT AND COLD HOLDING ^ { y{S �y W A-eU04K( I}Y�► EX �1 W � fitter ] METHODS J [e.g. COOLERS, STEAM TABLE, ICE] CONDIMENTS MUST BE SINGLE SERVICE OR IN APPROVED DISPENSING CONTAINERS PROTECTED FROM CONTAMINATION. PLEASE TURNOVER AND COMPLETE Page I of 2 Revised 717111 L IST ALL ITEMS BEING PREPARED OR SERVED — USE A SEPARATE. SriFFT rF MnRF SPArc s0 wVVnVn FOOD AND 13EVERAGES SOURCES OF FOOD AND WHERE FOOD IS PREPARED FOOD PREPARATION METHODS [Include Quantity] BEVERAGES [No Home Prepared Food — [Describe] Fax: 540 - 635 -9698 [Name of Supplier] see Guidelines for Temporary 100 North Buckmarsh Street 75 Court Lane Berryville, Virginia 22611 Food Establishments] 540 - 955 -1033 Phone: 540.743 -6528 u A o. a ®S o x. a e.. IQ�'e Frs� •�} ' �r� �- 1 �� L 0 _ Woodstock, Virginia 22664 Phone: 540- 459 -3733 Fax:540- 459 -8267 FAIRFAX � c 4 + ►e?� C '� � Rt� � ��r S 6 ti ti [� 164 C t`;3 1 S;6V N . — F IP �r�1t�/0•�� ��� try ✓L 1z' ua ALA [AISrK) �tf a tadlA� CA-1 [7r� �d� _rV+� ' T C, I have read the Temporary Food Establishment Guidelines, understand them, and will comply with their requirements. I understand that failure to comply may result in denial or suspension of permit, as per the Comrrionwealtla�of Virginia Board of Healf4 Foo e ions 12 AC 5 -421 Signature Date. �/2..1 Print name ��fG j� /C� °`r-•� Frederick County, avid Winchester City:, Warren County: 134 Peyton Street 107 North Kent Street, Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Phone: 540- 722 -3480 Phone: 540-635-3159 . Fax: 540 -722 -3479 Fax: 540 - 635 -9698 Clarke County: Page County: 100 North Buckmarsh Street 75 Court Lane Berryville, Virginia 22611 Luray, Virginia 22835 540 - 955 -1033 Phone: 540.743 -6528 Fax: 540 - 955 -4094 Fax: 540-743-3811 Shenandoah rount _ 494 Main Street, ##100 1 �� L 0 _ Woodstock, Virginia 22664 Phone: 540- 459 -3733 Fax:540- 459 -8267 FAIRFAX Page 2 of 2 Revised 7r7/11 fzi VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OFALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 2901 I4ermitage Road • P 0 Box 2749I • Richmond VA 23261 -7491 License Number: 419929 ABC BANQUET LICENSE License Type: Banquet Special Event (Per Day) Banquet Event Dates: 09/06/2013 Banquet Name & EventAddress Mary Sue Hildreth Concern Hotline Inc GROVE'S HARLEY DAVIDSON 140 INDEPENDENCE DRIVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602 Frederick County - Territory # 30 Staunton - Region 3 (540) 332 -7800 State License Fee Paid. $40.00 Instructions for Operating under a Banquet License The privileges of this license are hereby granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to the Licensee named above to operate in accordance with the Lem of the license herein designated and the applicable statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and regulations of the Board. 1. Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverage to any person who you know or have reason to believe is intoxicated and do not allow any alcoholic beverage to be consumed by such a person in attendance at your banquet. Do not allow any person who you know or have reason to believe is intoxicated to loiter upon your licensed area. Any person who has drunk enough alcoholic beverages to affect his manner, disposition, speech, muscular movements, general appearance or behavior, as to be apparent to observation shall be deemed to be intoxicated. 2. Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverage to any person who you know or have reason to believe is less than 21 years of age and do not allow any alcoholic beverage to be consumed by such a person in attendance at your banquet, 3, Do not allow any form of illegal gambling to take place during your banquet. 4. Do not possess any illegal gambling apparatus, machine or device upon your licensed premises. 5. Do not be intoxicated or under the influence of a self- administered drug during your banquet. 6. Do not sell or give away any alcoholic beverages on your licensed area during restricted hours. 7, Mixed Beverages under a Mixed Beverage Special Event License must be purchased from a state ABC Store. 8. Do not purchase alcoholic beverages from licensed wholesalers except on the day ofthe banquet. For those functions held on Saturday or Sunday, purchase may be made on Friday, Payment must be made in cash or a valid check drawn upon a bank account in the name of the licensee or in the name of the group sponsoring the banquet. Each invoice must be signed by the purchasing licensee or his duly authorized agent. 9. Licensed wholesalers may supply, at a reasonable wholesale price, paper or plastic cups upon which advertising matter regarding beer or wine may appear. 10. Alcoholic beverages to be given away may be, purchased from retail establislunents, 11. Do not sell, give away or allow the consumption of alcoholic beverage in any portion or your licensed area that has not been approved by the Board, (NOTE: Violation of this instruction could result in arrest for Drinking in Public.) Alcoholic beverages must be confined to the building, room or general area for which the license is issued. 12. Do not allow any person who is less than 18 years of age to sell, serve or dispense beer. MARY SUE HILDRETH CONCERN HOTLINE INC P O BOX 2032 WINCHESTER VA 22604 The license privilege is strictly for on premises sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages at the address of event. W cl a6 �' 2 LL 's s � m t .} L� w LL G� FH � 0 O LC � I H �V a 4 Mn c z L L 2 " U a e. W a� S w LL G� d, ac CD J i I i } COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 1080 Coverstone Drive Winchester, VA 22602 John 1. Bausannan Captain Fire Marshal Life Safety Division MEMORANDUM TO: Teresa Price. County Administrator's FROM: Jay Bauserman Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Festival PerrnilWConcern Hotline at Grove's Winchester Harley- Davidson 0. "'D G .. DATE: July 30, 2013 After reviewing the Outdoor Festival Permit Application for Concern Hotline at Grove's Harley- Davidson, located at 140 Independence Drive, the Frederick County Fire Marshal's Office has no objections to the event scheduled for September 6, 2013. The site plan shows tents at the festival. Tents greater than 900sq,ft. will require permitting and inspections by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. Life Safety (540) 665 -6350 ® jbausertn@co.frederick.va.us 0 Fax (540) 678 -4739 ORDINANCE August 14, 2013 The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia hereby ordains that Sections 155 -9, 155 -10, 155 -13, and 155 -14 of Article II (Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate) of Chapter 155 (Taxation) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia be, and the same hereby are, amended by enacting amended Sections 155 -9, 155 -10, 155 -13, and 155 -14 of Article 11 (Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate) of Chapter 155 (Taxation) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia, as follows and to take effect immediately (deletions are shown in h^'.- g.+r;kethFough and additions are shown in bold underline CHAPTER 155 TAXATION Article II Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate § 155 -9 Findings. The County finds that the preservation of real estate devoted to agricultural, horticultural, forest and open space uses within its boundaries is in the public interest and, having heretofore adopted a land use plan, hereby ordains that such real estate shall be taxed in accordance with the provisions of Title 58.1, Article 4, § 58.1 -3229 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and of this article. § 155 -10 Eligibility for special assessments; applications; revalidations. A. The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth by §§ 58.1 - 3230,, a-nd 58.1 -3233 and 58.1 -3237 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, may, at least 60 days preceding the tax years for which such taxation is sought, apply to the Commissioner of Revenue for the classification, assessment and taxation of such property for the next succeeding tax year on the basis of its use under the procedures set forth by § 58.1 -3236 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provided that, in any year in which a general reassessment is being made, the property owner may submit such application until 30 days have elapsed after his notice of increase in assessment is mailed in accordance with § 5 8w -792 01 58.1- 3330 of the Code of Virginia or 60 days preceding the tax year, whichever is later, provided that such application must be submitted for any year at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the assessment for such year. Such application shall be on forms provided by the State Department of Taxation and supplied by the Commissioner of Revenue and shall include such additional schedules, photographs and drawings as may be required by the Commissioner of Revenue. B. A separate application shall be filed for each parcel on the land book for which qualification is sought. C. All applications under this article shall be accompanied by an application fee payable to the County Treasurer of $100 or $0.50 per acre (or major part thereof) per parcel sought to be classified, assessed and taxed under this article, whichever is greater. No such application fee is required upon the filing of an annual revalidation nor upon the filing of an application upon a change in acreage. D. The owner of any real estate which has been approved for special assessment as allowed by § 58.1 -3231 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, shall revalidate annually any application previously approved. Such revalidation shall be made with the Commissioner of Revenue, on forms prescribed by the same. Revalidations must be made before November 1 of the preceding tax year for which such assessment is sought. E. Late filing of land use applications. A late filing fee of $25 will be assessed for late filing for each parcel application. The applicant will have 30 days from the date of passage of this subsection and 30 days from the due date, November 1, of each year hereafter. § 155 -11 Determinations of Commissioner of Revenue. A. Promptly upon receipt of any application, the Commissioner of Revenue shall determine whether the subject property meets the criteria for taxation hereunder. If the Commissioner of Revenue shall determine that the subject property does meet such criteria, he shall determine the value of such property for its qualifying use, as well as its fair market value. B. In determining whether the subject property meets the criteria for forest use, the Commissioner of Revenue may request an opinion from the Director of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development; and in determining whether the subject property meets the criteria for open space use, he may request an opinion from the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation. Upon the refusal of the Director of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development or the Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation to issue an opinion or in the event of an unfavorable opinion which does not comport with standards set forth by the respective Director, the party aggrieved 2 may seek relief from a court of record wherein the real estate in question is located; and in the event that the court finds in his favor, it may issue an order which shall serve in lieu of an opinion for the purposes of this article. § 155 -12 Recording of real estate values. The use value and fair market value of any qualifying property shall be placed on the land book before delivery to the Treasurer, and the tax for the next succeeding tax year shall be extended from the use value. § 155 -13 Rollback tax imposed. There is hereby imposed a rollback tax, in such amount as may be determined under § 58.1 -3237 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, upon any property as to which the use changes to a nonqualifying use. Rollback tax shall not become due hereunder solely because of a change in zoning to any zoning district other than the RP, R4 or R5 Zoning Districts, made at the request of the owner or his agent, that would permit a more intensive use. Such real estate may remain eligible for use value assessment and taxation, in accordance with the provisions of this article, as long as the use by which it qualified does not change to a nonqualifying use. No rollback tax shall become due with respect to the real estate until such time as the use by which it qualified changes to a nonqualifying use. § 155 -14 Changes in status. A. The owner of any real estate liable for rollback taxes shall report to the Commissioner of Revenue, on forms to be prescribed, any change in use of such property to a nonqualifying use OF ^hange in zoning and shall pay the rollback tax then due to the Treasurer. The Commissioner shall forthwith determine and assess the rollback tax, which shall be paid to the Treasurer within 30 days of assessment. On failure to report within 60 days following such change in use, such owner shall be liable for an additional penalty equal to 10% of the amount of the rollback tax, which penalty shall be collected as a part of the tax. In addition to such penalty, there is hereby imposed interest of 10% per annum of the amount of the rollback tax or a fraction thereof during which the failure continues. B. Any person making a material misstatement of fact in any application filed pursuant hereto shall be liable for all taxes in such amounts and at such times as if such property had been assessed on the basis of fair market value as applied to other real estate in the taxing jurisdiction, together with interest and penalties thereon; and he shall be further assessed with an additional penalty of 100% of such unpaid taxes. 9 § 155 -15 Applicability of statutory provisions. The provisions of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, applicable to assessments and taxation hereunder, shall be adopted mutatis mutandis, including, without limitation, provisions relating to tax liens and the correction of erroneous assessments. For such purposes, the rollback taxes shall be considered to be deferred real estate taxes. Enacted this 14 day of August, 2013. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Robert W. Wells Christopher E. Collins Gene E. Fisher Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator 0 ORDINANCE 2013 The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia hereby ordains that Section 158 -4 (D), of Article II (Stopping, Standing, and Parking) of Chapter 158 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia be, and the same hereby is, amended by enacting amended Section 158 -4 (D) of Article II (Stopping, Standing, and Parking) of Chapter 158 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia, as follows and to take effect immediately (deletions are shown in bG4-d c+r0Ln+hrG6"j and additions are shown in bold underline CHAPTER 158 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC Article II Stopping, Standing, and Parking § 158 -4 General Restrictions. (D) Parking vehicle without current state license a 4d or a current state inspection sticker. It shall be unlawful for any person to park any vehicle on any street or highway without the vehicle displaying a current state license a+nd or a current state inspection sticker. The penalty for any violation of this restriction shall be a fine in the amount of $40. Enacted this day of ' 2013. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Robert W. Wells Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins Gary A. Lofton Gene E. Fisher Robert A. Hess A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator County of Frederick, Virginia CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #03 -13 w ' CO��� VERIZON WIRELESS AND BERTHA McILWEE TRUST a Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors w A � Prepared: July 29, 2013 ;J3B Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 07/17/13 Recommended approval Board of Supervisors: 08/14/13 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to enable the construction of a 195 -foot, Monopole Telecommunications Facility. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Page 2 CUP 903 -13 Verizon Wireless July 29, 2013 LOCATION This property is located at 2250 Back Mountain Road (Route 600). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER 49 -A -28 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential/Vacant East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential/Vacant West: R -5 (Residential Recreational Community) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE This application is for a 195 foot Monopole -Type Commercial Telecommunication Tower and Equipment Shelter_ REVIEW EVALUATIONS Virginia Department of Transportation: Site is served by a private street network and therefore, VDOT has no comments. Frederick County Inspections: Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Sections 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code 2009. Per the Sections 102.3 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, 2009 edition, Section 102.3 VUSBC exempts equipment, related wiring, and poles and towers supporting the related wiring installed by a provider of publicly regulated utility service .... The exemption shall apply only if under applicable federal and state law the ownership and control of the equipment and wiring is by the service provider or its affiliates. Such exempt equipment and wiring shall be located on either public rights -of -way or private property for which the service provider has rights of occupancy and entry; however, the structures, including their service equipment, housing, or supporting such exempt equipment and wiring shall be subject to the USBC. The installation of equipment and wiring exempted by this section shall not create an unsafe condition prohibited by the USBC. Construction of Pre Engineered shelter requires a building permit. Plans submitted shall be sealed by a Virginia Registered Design Professional. Fencing greater than 6' in height requires a building permit. Page 3 CUP 903 -13 Verizon Wireless July 29, 2013 Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letter dated April 15, 2013, signed by Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see attached letter dated May 31, 2013, signed by Candice Perkins, Senior Planner. Planning and Zoning: The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County ( "Comprehensive Plan ") provides guidance when considering any land use action. This proposed 195 -foot monopole -type commercial telecommunication facility is located on property identified within the Comprehensive Plan as the Shawnee Land/North Mountain Rural Community Center. This area is to remain rural and is not part of any current land use study. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The properties immediately adjacent to this proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and R -5 (Residential Recreational) Zoning District. The applicant has applied for a CUP for a 195 foot monopole -type commercial telecommunications facility on a 218± acre property, with the nearest property and dwelling being approximately 260 feet from this facility. A register Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed, and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. The setbacks for this proposed commercial telecommunication facility will be approximately 260 feet from the road right -of -way, greater than 1,000 feet from the right and left property line and 15,000 feet from rear property line. The zoning ordinance requires that all proposed telecommunication facilities be subject to additional performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic values. The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) via the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, has identified three potentially significant structures within the immediate area of the subject site; one of the structures is located on -site. (See HRAB comments.) Furthermore, the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt was made to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility, and possible collocation structures. The applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities, and no other telecommunication facility or possible collocation opportunity structures exist in this area. Staff has identified a possible collocation site within a two (2) mile radius of this proposed site. Therefore, the applicant should be prepared to Page 4 CUP 903 -13 Verizon Wireless July 29, 2013 demonstrate that this proposed use is appropriate to provide satisfactory coverage in this area of the County. Should this facility be approved this commercial telecommunication facility will be positioned to provide the existing and future land uses in this area of the County with telecommunication needs. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/13/13 PLANNING COMMSSION MEETING Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 7/17/13 MEETING The staff reported the HRAB had identified three potentially significant structures within the immediate area of the subject site and one of the structures was located on this site. The HRAB requested the applicant prepare a detailed Preliminary Information Form (PIF) for the subject property, but should also consider a PIF for the surrounding area because this could be a potential Rural Historic District. Staff noted the PIF had not yet been submitted and was not within the Commission's agenda packet. The Planning Commission Chairman commented that the required letter from the engineer addressing tower circumference and collapse zone was also not included within the agenda packet. The applicant's representative stated the PIF is being developed and would be submitted to the staff prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting. The applicant stated they were at exactly half the height of the tower from the property line and not required to submit an engineer's letter. However, Verizon typically shows the collapse zone, regardless of the setback, and will provide that information for the Commission. Page 5 CUP 903 -13 Verizon Wireless July 29, 2013 One person came forward during the public comment portion of the hearing to speak. Mr. Hugh VanMeter, Chairman of the Shawneeland Advisory Committee, requested a copy of the Verizon information packet and a second copy for the Shawneeland Manager. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to recommend approval of this CUP with the submission of the PIF requested by the HRAB, along with the submission of information addressing tower circumference and collapse zone, and with the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment of operation. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of the conditional use permit, the conditional use permit will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) Following the required public meeting, a decision regarding this Conditional Use Permit application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. RN p�1Y, TOM Tel SHAWNEEI KSubdivis GF q N0 � P - 9 ✓ O O - Q pp r pMq CUP03 7 3 zam k I � r BARRINGTON HILLS ESTATES Subdivisi6n TyRp UGy� p p0 O Applications T RH Q Parcels Building Footprints 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) t EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) py M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) f MS (Medical Support District) \ OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R6 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) , r; J s RP (Residential Performance District) R 0 Note: CUP # 03 -13 Frederick County Dept of Verizon Wireless and Planning & Development 07 N Kent St e Bertha Mcllwee suite 202 PINS: Winchester, VA 22601 49 - A - 28 540 - 665 - 5651 195' Monopole Tower Map Created: June 10, 2013 Staff: mcheran 0 415 830 1,660 Feet �, J 5 ���,� Submittal Deadline F f P !C Meeting BOS Meeting 1 t3 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (check one): Property Owner �_ Other NAME: Vedzon W+.reless ADDRESS: 9000 Junction Drive Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 TELEPHONE: 240- 401-=7 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 2250 Back Mountain Road 4. The property has a road frontage of 1860 feet and a depth of 1300 feet and consists of 218.42 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Bertha B Mcilwee,ETAL Trustess as evidenced by deed from (previous owner) recorded in deed book no. 818 on page 52 , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Property Identification Number (P.I.N.) 4s-A -28 Magisterial District Back Creek Current Zoning RA 5 7. Adjoining Property: North East South West USE ZONING Residential R5 Residential RA Residential RA Residential RA 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing): Telecommunications faGhty consisting of a 195 foot monopole with an overall height of 197' induding lighting rod YAM an associated equipment shelter measuring 30 long and 117" wide in a fenced compound adjacent to the monopole. 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Equipment shelter measuring 30' long by 117" wide;19r monopole 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Helen and Glenn Hines 2366 Back Mountain Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49 -A -29 Name Margaret Clem 376 Banks Ford Road Strasburg, VA 22657 Propert # 49 -A -29A NameTimothy L and Julie A Reissig 2329 Back Mountain Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49 -A -28C Name Diamond National LLC 114 N Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 Propert # 50 -6 -11,12 &13; 50 -A -30B NameTerri A Cochran 279 Throughwood TH. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49- A- 27,27C & 27G NameJessie E Goode 227 Throughwood TO. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49 -A -27D Name Stephen M. Zebarth 110 W Cork St. Winchester, VA 22602 Propert # 49 -A -23 & 25 Name and Property Identification Number Address N=eMark A. Plasters 210 Throughwood Trl. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49 -A -27E Name Edward W Strosnider 176 Throughwood Trl- Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49-A-27B Name Thomas Dorsey Rosenberger 2070 Back Mountain Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #50 -1 -B & 50 -1 -A Name Trustees of St. John c% Thomas Rosenberger 2070 Back Mountain Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #50 -1 -A1 Name Frederick County Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Property #49-A-02-2F Name Philip and Sharon Bushman 139 Back Ridge Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49 -3 -5 Name Mark Radford Anderson 1492 Fishel Rd. Winchester, VA 22 Property # 49 -A -28A NameJohn Timothy Frye 1346 Back Mountain Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49-A-2C Name Barbara F. Sumner 318 W. Cecil St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 49-A-4C NameCharles and Donna Mcliwee 2562 Back Mountain Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49 -A -27A Name Hugh B. Van Meter; Robert H. & Valerie van Meter 106 Potomak TH. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -114 Name Roy and Laura Cline 514 S. Homers Ln. Rockville, MD 20850 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -113 NameKerry C and Diane J James 107 Potomak Trl. Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49- A04 -1 -A -112 Name Ibrahim S. Mohamed 24808 Stone Pillar Dr. Stone Ridge, VA 20105 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -109 Name and Property Identification Number Address NameJames C. Kerry 107 Potomak TH. Winchester, VA 22602 Propem• #49- A04- 1- A -110A Name Wilmer R. Woodall, Jr. 205 Potomak TH. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -107 Name Hugh Barry Van Meter 106 Potomak TH. Winchester, VA 22602 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -117 Name Patricia Ann Loehne 12000 Cheviot Dr. Herndon, VA 20170 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -118 Name Michael and Cheryl Shepard 179 George Dr. Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49- A- 04 -1 -A -119 & 121 A Name Earl and Inez Meyer 3319 Bellington Dr. Orlando, FL 32825 Property #49- A- 04 -1 -A -120 Name Moustafa Humran 3818 Gelding Ln. Olney, MD 20832 Property # 49- A- 04 -1 -A -123 NameJessica and Jennifer Trossbach 1764 SW Shady Lake Terr. Palm City, FL 34990 Property # 49- A- 04 -1 -A -124 NameJames M. and Annabel R. Lewis 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 49 A- 04 -1 -A -126 Name Barbara Banezyk 4409 Stanford St. Bethesda, MD 20815 Property # 49- A- 04 -1 -A -127 NameCaren M. Meckes 122 Rappahannock TH. Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 49- A04 -1 -A -139 Name Blake R. & Concepcion Gregory 5417 Gerndale St. Springfield, VA 22151 Property # 49- A04 -1 -A -129 Name Patricia Pavero 2071 41 st St. South Grand Forks, ND 58201 Property #49- A04 -1 -A -130 Name David & Ruth Keppel, cJo Paige Presgrave 14511 Presgrave Pl. Haymarket, VA 20169 Property # 49- A04 -1 -A -134 1 Name and Property Identification Number Address NameCharles E Hoffert 6721 Greenyard Road Property # 49A 04 1 A 134 Chester, VA 23831 NameMichaei W and Jennifer L Knight 137 Assateague Trl Property #49A 04 1A 132A Winchester, VA 22602 Name George R. Baldwin 203 Assateague Trail Property #49A 04 1A 187 1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # 7 It. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. 8 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully maize application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address J<TW 66WI j►za &.i�, W , V••tzdjkv 2 I 12 - ocb[ � Owners' Telephone No. T 5 71 1603 TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONMG ADM,0STRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: 9 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Website: www.co.frederick.ya.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 j Phone (540) 665 -5651 Facsimile (540) 665 -6395 Know Ali Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) AZ41V . 9 A! r- ' ' _ (Phone) `� gf? (Address) .2 A ±G( G!. > Cep Z the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land (`Property ") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. ais on Page 6 , and is described as Parcel: A Lot: 28 Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Frank steem AHomay- Dondwe and s teams. PLC (Phone) 703-548.1 (Address) 20 1 " SftK guile E. Leesburg, VA 20175 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: _Rezoning (including proffers) _ - Conditional Use Permit Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) � Sebdivision ,vt Site Plan Variance or Appeal My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescuided or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this "day of �� , 203-, Signature(s) �° ` ` "4+ " a `? - ILI ru -"' / cr State of Virginia, Q&I/County of .t.- -! — ,To-wit: I, NDi4 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the persons) who signed to the foregoing insriume t sona11 peared before me and has acknow ged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforegas'd S. e :Qay of�0 1.3__. siotft'xpiles: 4R,4bltary Public = AEG. # y 1 741 71 * = MY Caj t� — • �fSSiQN • — S , m LANDOWNER AFFIDAVIT As per Section 165- 204.I9 (B) (7) of the Frederick County, Virginia Zoning Ordinance, the undersigned Trustees of Bertha B. McI Trust , owners of parcel 49 -A -28 located at 2250 Back Mountain Road, Winchester, Virginia 22602, hereby acknowledges that they may be held responsible of the removal of the commercial telecommunication facility proposed on this site. Name of Property Owner(s) Signature of Property Owner(s) In the StO o /Commonwealth of y irginia , in the GQt3c/County of Shenandoah L Charles R. Mcllwe and Margaret M. Clem, Trustees of Bertha B. McINee rust (property owner(s) state that the above information is accurate and true. rd My Carmission Expires: 4/30/2014 , � ;st sEemaei�, ix � H. .c� 3.:0 LA y' .C+ * °` REG. ?i Cn � /FA iT VIII , .1 ,l1 b��� STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION Conditional Use Permit Application Statement of Justification Applicant: Name of Project: Property Address: Magisterial District: Parcel ID No: Zoning Classification: Property Owner: Background Cellco Partnership d/bla Verizon Wireless Wilde Acres 2250 Back Mountain Road, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Back Creek 49 -A -28 RA Bertha McIlwee Et.Als. Trustees The applicant, Cellco Partnership d/b /a Verizon Wireless, seeks a Conditional Use Permit under § §165- 103.01 -165- (03.08 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance for a wireless telecommunication facility. The proposed facility will consist of a new 195 feet tall monopole with an overall height of 197 feet including lightning rod at the top of the structure. The facility will be located on Property Identification Number 49 -A -28 at 2250 Back Mountain Road, Winchester, Virginia 22602. The monopole will include fifteen (15) antennas mounted at one hundred ninety feet (190') above ground level (AGL). An associated equipment shelter measuring thirty feet (30') long by eleven feet seven inches (117') wide and ten feet seven inches (107') high will be located in a forty feet (40') by forty feet (40') equipment compound adjacent to the monopole and screened by a six foot (6') tall chain link fence with screening slats. Access to the facility will be from Assateague Trail Road near its intersection with Rappahannock Trail in the Shawnee Land community. The proposed telecommunications facility will have no impact on air quality, water quality, radiation exposure, light pollution, noise pollution, or traffic congestion or circulation. The antennas emit no noise, light or odors. The facility will be unmanned with infrequent visits of four or fewer per year by personnel for routine maintenance. There will be limited access to the facility with parking for no more than one standard sized vehicle. The Property consists of approximately two hundred eighteen point forty two (218.42) acres and is zoned RA, Rural Area District. Adjoining properties are zoned RA to the east, south and far west and far north. Properties to the immediate west and north in the Shawnee Land community are zoned R5, Residential Recreational Community. Northeast of the site at the intersection of Back Mountain Road and Rosenberger Lane there is a B 1, Business Neighborhood District property. The Property is owned by Bertha McIlwee Et.AI. Trustess. It is currently a rural farm use improved with a residential dwelling and related farm accessory buildings. The majority of the acreage is in pasture or woodlands. Verizon Wireless will enter into a lease agreement with the property owner to install and operate the wireless telecommunications facility on the Property. The monopole and associated compound will be sited on the western edge of the subject Property, near Assateague Trail and the Wilde Acres community. The facility will be within a wooded area that will mitigate its visibility from the immediate area to the west. Due to existing vegetation, distance, and topography, the proposed structure should have minimal visual impact on properties and public roadways to the north, south and east of the site. Requirement and Site Evaluation The Telecommunications Facility ( "Facility ") will be part of Verizon's Wireless telecommunications network as shown on the attached engineering plans and propagation maps. The objective of the site is to provide Verizon Wireless services along Back Mountain Road and enhance coverage on secondary roads in the vicinity. The site will not only fill service gaps but will enhance 4G -LTE data service to all residences in the surrounding area. Currently due to the high demand of high -speed data the existing surrounding cell sites do not support the capacity needs for the area. This site will offload these existing sites and enhance data speeds. There are no existing structures within the search area to support Verizon's antennas. Including the selected site, Verizon Wireless formally considered a total of nine sites to provide coverage to this area: Winchester Tower Farm, Valley View Trail west of site. The site was rejected because the existing tower will not meet Verizon's coverage objective. The maximum available height, either in its present form or as a rebuilt structure, is obstructed due to the topography and the ground elevation is too high to give coverage to the valley and the community of Shawnee Land to the east. Two other towers on the site owned by the Virginia State Police were rejected because of the ground elevation and inability to meet coverage objectives. All of the utility lines in the two transmission paths were reviewed; one south of Mountain Falls Park and one between Mountain Falls Park and Shawnee Land. While south of the search area these lines were considered because the transmission lines they would negate the need to build a new structure in the area. However, they did not meet coverage objectives. Two raw land sites were reviewed closer to the proposed AT &T tower in this area and again the topography was a challenge and the coverage objective could not be obtained because of the ground elevation. Two raw land candidates near Mountain Falls Park to the southwest of the selected site were rejected because the topography minimized any potential ability to meet coverage objectives. A site with an existing tower to the northwest along Firetower Road was also considered but was too high and too close to the existing Verizon Wireless site of "Bowling Green ". This site is also outside of the Verizon search area. A parcel directly within the Shawnee Land community was a preferred site but due to the small lot residential development of the community, the proposed facility would be too close to the residential development in this community. Zoning Ordinance Analysis Section 165- 204.19 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides the performance standards for telecommunication uses. The proposed facility compares to the applicable performance standards as follows: (1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for commercial telecommunications facilities as required by § 165-201.03B(g) of this chapter if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact When a reduced setback is requested for a distance less than the height of the tower, a certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification to the Planning Commission that the tower Is designed, and will be constructed, in a manner that 'the tower collapses for any reason the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback distance be reduced to less than 1/2 the distance of the tower height. Commercial telecommunications facilities affixed to existing structures shall be exempt from setback requirements, provided that they are located no closer to the adjoining property line than the existing structure. Applicant's Response: The applicant is seeking a waiver of the setback requirement. The telecommunication monopole structure will be setback a minimum of 98.5 feet from the boundary of all property lines, a distance that is one -half of the monopole's overall height of 197 feet including the lightning rod at the top of the structure. As the setback is less than the height of the proposed structure, verification from a certified engineer is provided with the application concerning the monopole's design and construction, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunications towers. The Board of Supervisors may allow lattice -type construction for new telecommunications towers when existing or planned residential areas will not be impacted and when the site is not adjacent to identified historical resources. kv a TM �"roducts LLC February 17, 2011 Network Building & Consulting, LLC 7380 Coca Cola Drive, Suite 106, Hanover, MD 21076, Attn: Michael Comiskey Reference: 199' Tapered Pole Site Name: Wilde Acres Frederick County, VA Dear Mr. Comiskey: J. 7 I. The referenced pole will be designed to meet the specified loading requirements in accordance with the ANSI/T!A/EIA- 222 -G -2005 for 90 MPH 3- second wind speed with no ice and 30 MPH 3 second gust wind speed with 0.75 inches radial ice. Structure Class: II; Exposure Category: C; Topographic Category: 1. It is our understanding that the design of the referenced pole requires consideration of a contained fall radius in the event a catastrophic wind speed were to result in a failure. Although the pole will not be designed to fail, stronger sections than required will be provided in the lower portion of the pole. This would result in an increased safety factor in the lower sections. This design would enable the pole to fail through a combination of bending and buckling in the upper portion of the pole should a catastrophic wind loading occur. Failure in this manner would result in the upper portion of the pole folding over the lower portion, preventing a total collapse of the structure and resulting in a fall zone radius less than 74 ft. The failure mode would theoretically be a local buckling failure involving a crippling of the pole wall on one side of the pole as opposed to the pole shearing off or completely breaking off and hitting the ground. Please contact us at your convenience should you have further questions concerning the safety of pole structures or other aspects of pole design. Since Habib Azouri, P.IE �- . Engineering Mar HABIB JIRJI AZOURI ;. cc: Ken Cordrey Lic. No. 033257 � T* Applicant's Response: The proposed commercial telecommunications facility will be a monopole -type construction. (3) Advertising shall be prohibited on commercial telecommunications facilities except for signage providing ownership identification and emergency information. No more than two signs shall be permuted Such signs shall be limited to 1.5 square feet in area and shall be posted no higher than 10 feet above grade- Applicant's Response: There shall be no signs or advertising on the proposed telecommunications facility. (4) When lighting Is required on commercial telecommunications facility towers, dual lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and nighttime red pulsating lighting unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe lighting shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to neighboring properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures operated in conjunction with commercial telecommunications facility towers shall utilize infrared lighting and motion - detector lighting to prevent continuous illumination. Applicant's Response: The telecommunications facility will not be lighted unless required for aircraft warning or other safety reasons. (5) Commercial telecommunications facilities shall be constructed with materials of a galvanized finish or painted a noncontrasting blue or gray unless otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Applicant's Response: The telecommunications facility will be of a galvanized finish. (6) Commercial telecommunications facilities shall be adequately enclosed to prevent access by persons other than employees of the service provider. Appropriate landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure that equipment buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from adjoining properties, roads or other rights -of -way. Applicant's Response: All associated equipment at the base of the monopole structure will be within a forty feet (40') by forty feet (40') compound area surrounded by a six feet (6') tall chain link fence with screening slats so as not to be visible from adjoining properties and road. (7) Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of 12 months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower shag remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Removal includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, underground cables and support buildings If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. If the tower is not removed within the ninety-day period, the County will remove the facility and a lien may be placed to recover expenses Applicant's response: if the structure is not used for a continuous period of 12 months it will be removed along with all associated equipment and fencing. Conclusion We respectfully submit that the special use permit should be approved as it is in conformance with the County Comprehensive Plan for Telecommunications. In addition, this application meets all of the standards in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the buffer yard requirements contained in Sec. 32- 240.10 (7), for which we are requesting a modification and/or waiver, as outlined above. :5408622936 10 1 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -5786 April 15, 2013 Cellco Partnership d/ble Verizon Wireless Donohue & Steam, PLC Frank W. Steams, ESq. 201 Royal Street, W.E. Suite E Leesburg, Virginia 20175 Re: Conditional Use Permit Comment Verizon 197' Tower 2250 Back Mountain Road, Winchester, VA Bertha B Mcitwee, ETAL Trustees — Tax Parcel 49 -A -28 Dear Mr. Steams: On behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority I offer the following comments on the referenced Conditional Use Permit application for a communications tower: 1. We have reviewed the FAA Aeronautical Study No. 2012 -AEA- 5145 -OE and Included In the FAA determination is a statement that cranetconstruction equipment exceeding the maximum height provided as 197' will require separate filing for cranelequipment operations with the FAA for review and comment. This would not require review by the Winchester Airport. 2. To maintain a safe navigable airspace environment for medevac and aircraft operations in Frederick County the Winchester Regional Airport Authority requests proposed towerslstructures between 150' and 199' AGL to be marked and lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 7017460 -1K, Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. As a condition to be met for approval of this CUP, I am requesting that the proposed tower be marked and lighted accordingly with the standards in the referenced FAA Advisory Circular. This completes our review comments. Should you have questions or require additional information, pleaseAo not hesitate contacting my office. Thank you for your cooperation in support of a safe navigable airspace environment in Frederick County. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 May 31, 2013 Tracy L. Themak, Esq. Donohue & Stearns, PLC 801 North Fairfax Street, Suite 209 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 RE: Application Requesting a Conditional Use Permit Application for a 195' Monopole Telecommunications Facility — Verizon — 2250 Back Mountain Road Property Identification Number (PIN): 49 -A -28 Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Area) Dear Ms. Themak: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced conditional use permit application at their meeting on May 21, 2013. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and information provided by Verizon (HRAB & CUP Application, Photographs of the site/ Photo simulations of the facility, coverage plots). The proposal seeks to construct a 195 -foot monopole commercial telecommunications tower with accessory equipment building on a property located at 2250 Back Mountain Road in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The Study of Civil War S in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, does not identify the proposed tower site or the surrounding areas as being part of a battlefield. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies three historic structures located within the vicinity of the proposed tower, one of which is located on site. All of these properties are listed as potentially significant. The sites that are listed in the survey are: • House, Route 600 (#34-357)—On site • Larrick Legge House ( 434 -339) • Schultz House ( #34 -385) After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed conditional use permit application with the following condition: 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Ms. Tracy L. Themak, Esq. Re: Conditional Use Permit Application for Verizon May 31, 2013 Page 2 The applicant at a minimum should prepare a detailed preliminary information sheet (PIF) for the subject property, but should consider a PIF for the surrounding area because this area could be a potential rural historic district. This PIF should be included as part of the Conditional Use Permit Application submitted to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Candice Perkins, AICP Senior Planner CEP /bad cc: Lauren Murphy, HRAB Chair N G 0 N S U L T I N G www.ebiconsulting.com August 6, 2013 Ms. Stephanie M. Petway Zoning Project Manager Network Building & Consulting, LLC 7380 Coca Cola Drive, Suite 106 Hanover, MD 21076 Subject: Intensive Level Survey Form Site Number: 11617 / Wilde Acres 2250 Back Mountain Road, Winchester, Frederick County, VA EBI Project # 61 132741 Dear Ms. Petway: 6876 Susquehanna Trail South York, PA 17403 Tel: (717) 428 -0401 Fax: (717) 428 -0403 www.ebiconsultingcom EBI Consulting (EBI) has prepared an Intensive Level Survey Form on behalf of Cellco Partnership and its controlled affiliates doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless) for the property noted above. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about the information contained in this report. Sincerely, Tara Cubie Architectural Historian P: 339.234.2597 Attachments: Intensive Level Survey Form Photos and Photo Location Map Site Plan Topographic Map f Ms. Jennifer L. Davis Senior Architectural Historian ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. LOCATIONS I ATLANTA, GA I BALTIMORE, MD I BURLINGTON, MA I CHICAGO, IL DALLAS, TX I DENVER, CO I HOUSTON, TX I LOS ANGELES, CA I NEW YORK, NY I PHOENIX, AZ I PORTLAND, OR SAN FRANCISCO, CA I SEATTLE, WA I YORK, PA Property Name: James T. Mcllwee House GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION: D H R ID #: 034 -0357 PROPERTY DATE (S): C.1890 PROPERTY NAMES: • lames T. Mcllwee House • House, Route 600 (from Rural Landmarks Survey Report Frederick County) ADDRESS: 2250 Back Mountain Road Town /Village /Hamlet: Winchester, Clowser Gap ZIP Code: 22602 County /Ind City: Frederick County USGS Quad Name: Hayfield, VA 1977 UTM Coords: 17S 729991 mE 4340759mN Open to public: N Is there a CRM report: Yes PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF GENERAL SURROUNDINGS Setting: Rural, Agricultural Acreage: 218.42 Site Description Notes /Notable Landscape Features: The farm lies along the northwestern side of Back Mountain Road (Rt. 600). The property aligns with the road. The area around the house is gently rolling and is currently used for cattle grazing. A tree -lined ridge, also part of the property, is located northwest of the house and outbuildings. The area around the house has large trees and shrubs. Secondary Resource (s) Setting Description: Seven outbuildings and one foundation are located to the rear and south -west of the house. (1) privy, directly behind house (contributing) (2)Smokehouse, rear of house, next to privy (contributing) (3)Chicken Coop, east of main house (contributing) (4) three sheds /unidentified outbuildings, behind and west of house (contributing) (5) barn, located southwest of main house (contributing) and (6) foundation ruins, west of house (non- contributing). See site plan for more details. Ownership Categories: Private HISTORIC DISTRICT INFORMATION N/A INDIVIDUAL RESOURCE INFORMATION: Resource Type: Single Dwelling Primary Resource: Yes Estimated Date of Construction: C.1890 Source of Date: Interview with current owner, Architectural Style. Secondary Resources: 1. Shed 1- contributing 2. Shed 2- contributing 3. Shed 3- contributing 4. Smoke /Meat House - contributing 5. Barn - contributing 6. Privy- contributing 7. Chicken House /Poultry House - contributing Architectural Style /Form /Derivations: Folk Victorian Historical Use: Dwelling and Farm Current Use: Dwelling and farm ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The lames T. Mchwee House is believed to have been constructed in the 1890s, based on analysis of ornamentation and overall design, historical atlases and censuses, and an interview with current owner. The house is an 1 -house with an integral rear ell- a form that is common in Frederick County and the Mid - Atlantic. The basement, foundation and house indicate that they were likely built at the same time. The ornamentation is typical of the Folk Victorian style, with some minor Gothic Revival details. Unlike High -Style Victorian, it is more modest in ornamentation. The building has had some modern interventions. The original German lap weather board siding, which was originally on all elevations, was replaced with white aluminum siding approximately ten years ago. At the same time, the two - over -two double hung windows were replaced with modern double hung windows. The original stone foundation is located under poured concrete, and is visible in some sections of the building. The front (eastern) facade of the two story house is three bays wide and features a decorative one -story porch. Typical of the I- House, the facade emphasizes the house's symmetrical design through its even placement of windows, doors, chimneys and porch along the central axis of the cross gabled roof. The facade has evenly spaced fenestration, with two windows flanking the central door on the lower level and three windows with equal spacing on the upper level. The house had a small pointed Gothic Revival arched attic window, which has since been removed and has been replaced with a vent with horizontal louvers. The classically styled Victorian porch includes decorative turned columns, decorative brackets, turned spindle spandrels, and a paneled frieze. The front porch encompasses both lower level windows and door. It has a poured concrete floor. The central door has been replaced and is not original to the house. The shed style porch roof has a standing seam metal roof that matches the cross - gabled roof of the house. Brick, running bond, corbelled chimneys protrude from each end of the roof. The southwestern and northeastern elevations of the I -House sections are matching and have two matching windows, one on each floor, located in the north half of the building. The southeastern facade of the rear -ell has a one -story porch with a shed roof. It is flanked at each end by small rooms. The porch is supported by a singular square post. The lower level has four double -hung windows: two located within the porch and two on the small rooms at the end of the porch. Two windows on the upper level align with the lower level porch openings. A paneled wooden door located behind a metal screen door provides access into the kitchen. The porch has a poured concrete floor. A brick, running bond, corbelled chimney protrudes from the center of the roof gable. The rear (western) facade of the ell is the only section of the house that is not symmetrical, as it reflects the massing of the one story porch on the southeastern elevation and the two story porch on the northwestern elevation. The rear facade has two windows, one on each floor, and an attic window vent with horizontal louvers. Exterior access to the basement is located through wooden exterior hatch doors (currently covered with metal). The rear -ell on the northwestern facade has a two -story porch with a combination gable and shed roof. The porch is located between the front I -House section and a small room at the northwestern end on both levels. The three bay porch is supported by square posts. The upper level railing has decorative turned balusters. The lower level porch has two double hung windows and three doors. The paneled wooden doors appear to date to the original period of construction. Two lead into the rear ell, and one door leads into the front I -House section. The upper level porch has two doors and two windows. Two additional windows, one on each level, are located on the north - western end rooms. Condition: Fair Number of Stories: 2 Interior Plan Type: Center Hall, single pile with rear ell. Accessed? No- unable to coordinate visit of interior with owner. Able to view interior of lower level through window, with permission of owner. Threat: NONE KNOWN DHR Time Period: Reconstruction and Growth (1866 to 1916) Historic Context (s): Domestic HISTORICAL SUMMARY (STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The house was constructed c.1890 by lames T. (1.T.) Mcllwee and his wife Victoria Gardner Mcllwee. The house has remained it the Mcllwee family since its construction. The lames T. Mcllwee House is located at 2250 Back Mountain Rd. (Rt. 600) in Frederick County, ten miles east of the city of Winchester, Virginia, and near the settlement of Clowser Gap. It is an example of the vernacular Victorian farmhouses that marked the prosperous farms of the Shenandoah Valley from the 1870s until the 1890s. Although modest in ornamentation, it is a good example of a rural turn of the century farm. The house is believed to have been constructed in the 1890s. It was presumably built by James T. Mcllwee, a Frederick County farmer, and remains in the Mcllwee family to the present day. The Mchwees were one of the original founding families of Frederick County. lames T. Mcllwee (known to his family as 1.T.) was born in 1845, in Frederick County, to Mary and William Mcllwee. He married Virginia Regina Gardner on February 7, 1867. Victoria was the daughter of William P. and Regina Gardner. William P. Gardner was a renowned local millwright. The James T. Mcllwee house is similar in plan and style to other houses attributed to the Gardner family and may have been constructed by his in -laws. Mcllwee "s land adjoined that of several other long -time residents of Frederick County. His neighbors included William P. Gardner, John Wotring, CH Snapp, as well as the Rosenberger and Clowser families. The house was located in a stretch characterized by more prosperous farms. The house was inherited c. 1923, after the death of Victoria and James, by Charles A. Mcillwee (b.1871), who married Mary A. Proffitt in 1900. Upon their deaths, Merle Marco Mcllwee and his wife, Bertha, inherited the farm. The property is currently still owned by the Mcllwee family. The overall appearance of the house appears to have been little changed since its construction. However, aluminum siding was put on the building and original windows were removed and replaced approximately ten years ago, which significantly impacts its historic integrity. Most of the other character defining features remain intact. PRIMARY RESOURCE EXTERIOR COMPONENT DESCRIPTION Foundation: Poured concrete over original stone foundation. Structure: Frame construction (sawn lumber) Walls: Aluminum siding. It is unknown if wood siding exists under aluminum siding. Windows: Double Hung, modern. Porch: Front facade one story porch, rear ell -south facade double porch, rear ell -north facade one story porch. All porches wood with spindle work detail. Roof: Cross Gable Roof. Standing seam metal. Chimney: two brick, running bond, chimneys with corbelled caps symmetrically placed on roof of main house, one brick, running bond, chimney with corbelled cap, center of rear ell roof. INDIVIDUALS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTY ASSOCIATED INDIVIDUALs Owner - - 1.T. and Victoria (nee Gardner) Mcllwee C.1890 -1923 Owner -- Charles A. and Mary A. (nee Proffitt) Mcllwee 1923 -? Owner - -Merle Marco Mcllwee and Bertha (nee Brill) Mcllwee ? -2012 Owner -- Charles R. Mcllwee 2012 - present EVENTS: None found GRAPHIC MEDIA DOCUMENTATION Photographs Included BIBLIOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Type Author (First and Last Name) Citation Notes Interview Charles R. Mcllwee August 4, 2013 Conducted over phone Book Cartmell, Thomas Kemp Shenandoah Valley Pioneers & Their Descendents. Berryville, VA: Chesapeake Book Co. 1963 Book Hofstra, Warren R. The Planting of New Virginia: Settlement and Landscape in the Shenandoah Valley. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Book Kalbian, Maral S Frederick County, VA History Through Architecture. Winchester, VA: Winches- ter - Frederick County Historical Society Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, 1999 Book Kerns, Wilmer L Frederick Co., VA, Settlement and Some First Families of Back Creek Valley, 1730 -1830. Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1995. Book Quarles, Garland Redd. Some Old Homes in Frederick Co., VA. Winchester, VA: WFCHS, 1971, 1990. Census United State Government "United States Census, 1920," index and images, FamilySearch (https: / /familysearch.org /pal: /MM9.1.1 /MJFJ -6DF accessed 05 Aug 2013), James T Mcilwee, 1920 Census United States Government "United States Census, 1910," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MPPV-JV7 accessed 05 Aug 2013), James T Mcilwee, 1910. Virginia "Virginia, Marriages, 1785- 1940," index, FamilySearch Marriages (https: / /familysearch.org /pal: /MM9.1.1 /X5YZ -PY4 : accessed 05 Aug 2013), Jas. T. Mcilwee in entry for Chas. A. Mcilwee and Mary A. Proffitt, 07 Feb 1900. Atlas Lake, D.J. and Co. Lake's Atlas of Frederick County.1885. Kalbian, Mara[ S Rural Landmarks Survey Report Frederick County, Virginia Including file with 1 7 1 photographs for 34- Phase 1- 1111988 -1992 0357 CRM EVENT INFORMATION Date Project # Event Type CRMPerson (First) CRMPerson (Last) Remarks 1989 Survey: Phase I Leslie Giles /Reconnaissance SITE PLAN Date: August 4, 2013 See Attached Photo Location Map Arrow indicates the approximate location and direction in which the photograph was taken 1. View looking northwest towards front facade of house. - r 2. View looking southwest :. towards Main 4 House. MEOW- - i -.' 3. View looking northeast towards Main House. r 4. View looking southeast towards rear facade of Main House. 5. View northwest towards Smoke House. a.3f[c 6. View east towards privy. 7. View northwest towards Chicken Coop. t f 8. View towards northwest towards Shed #1. 4 r i Site Plan (Not to Scale): 0 0 q 0 0 C. Privy D. Barn E. Shed #3 F. Shed #2 G. Shed #1 H. Chicken House /Coop r � * 4 • 1a �► � i' a '�. - tAF- �?�...,, f,� � Ji i + 5� � � 7 ��;' w sey 1 } f r * jor F es' f it r 4 f + . 1 fir ( l ♦ f 41+ ■ i � � ,!�'; r 1 Y � i J r �' ill ��7` ! � � � � ;V � � � � '{ � �"`r"'�,.'. tf !ll ` Irl 1 4 �, •• r f ice. '� Y ^ t LO moo r ��. ...•..� ♦ �1 � � 4 f �� � r 1 � _te � � �1 Legen Source: Selected data from g USGS and EBI. Selected Project Site N =� Site Radius at 250', 500', 1000' & 1/2 mile wE S Topographic Map 2250 BACK MOUNTAIN ROAD WINCHESTER, VA 22602 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet EBt Consu lting , environmental I engineering I due diligence RF JUSTICATION AND ALTERNATIVE SITES REVIEW September 28, 2022 \ t VOri 011wireless 4 , RF JUSTIFICATiO #N SITE NAME: Wilde Acres Ai?rirxi;QS: 2254 Sack Mountain Rd, Winchester VA 53069 The objective of the Wilde Acres site is to provide Verizon Wireless services along Back Mountain Rd, and enhance coverage on secondary roads in the vicinity of Winchester and surrounding areas. The site will not only fill coverage gaps but will enhance 4G -LTE data service to all residences in the surrounding area, Currently due to the high demand of high speed data the existing surrounding cell sites do not support the capacity needs for the area, this site will offload these sites and enhance data speeds. There are no existing structures within the search area to support Verizon's antennas and the proposed structure will be constructed no higher on elevation than necessary. The attached coverage plots were propagated at 1200PL For adequate indoor service and 1330PL for adequate outdoor service. Prepared by: Alvaro Vidal Sr. RF Engineer f " v ■ CD s ■. k • -L a r • r - r: w i ■ L r a a I x LU V/ a 46 a a m r • k • -L a r • r - r: w i ■ L r a a I o. r b s . 1 a � O a V i � a 1p a V 41 0 SITE PLAN /FACILITY DRdAWINGS REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMENTS Frederick County inspections Department Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Department 107 North Kent Street, 2 Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665 -5650 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Inspections Department Attn: Building Official 107 North Kent Street, 2 ' Floor Winchester, Virginia Applicant: It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach two (2) copies of your application form, location map and all other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Cellco Partnership d/b /a Verizon Wireless Telephone: 703- 726 -2547 Mailing Address: Donohue & Stearn. PLC Frank W. Stearns, Esq. 201 R oyal S treet, S. E. Suite toesburg, VA 20175 7 F t'Yc id count Name of development and /or description of the request: r INIC Works iz Inspil tioris Unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of 15 ant §nna mounted on a 195' rnongpple with a related equop ent shelter, measures 30' /ono by 117' wide and 107' tall, in a 40' by 40' fenced compound area at the base of the mon opole. Location of Property: 2250 Back Mountian Road Winchester, VA 22602 Building Official's Comments: Building Official's Signature & Date: I (� 7 Notice to Inspections Dels anent - Please Return This Form to the Applicant M M Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code 2009. Per the Section 102.3 of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, 2009 edition, Section 102.3 VUSBC exempts equipment, related wiring, and poles and towers supporting the related wiring installed by a provider of publicly regulated utility service.....The exemption shall apply only if under applicable federal and state law the ownership and control of the equipment and wiring is by the service provider or its affiliates. Such exempt equipment and wiring shall be located on either public rights -of -way or private property for which the service provider has rights of occupancy and entry; however, the structures, including their service equipment, housing, or supporting such exempt equipment and wiring shall be subject to the USBC. The installation of equipment and wiring exempted by this section shall not create an unsafe condition prohibited by the USBC. Construction of Pre Engineered shelter requires a building permit. Plans submitted shall be sealed by a Virginia Registered Design Professional Fencing greater than 6' in height requires a building permit PHOTOSIMULATIONS OF FACILITY fQ 0 0 4-J C fII Z3 V p O N �C m O Lr) N N ` t -dCM ` iw \ � �� ,� .;..k AArlMhmdW- ry . �r r, I f �. l,o � r r ki ye � ri � I a ! T 1{ �M r � Z c� a r- C Lip � C a it t t � Y f r ry . �r r, I f �. l,o � r r ki ye � ri � I a ! T 1{ �M r � Z c� a r- C Lip � C a it El J 4 � Y F1 YJ I] i 4 Z C gs cx m gg c 0 .a 5 ,1 � � j a oi U t tic all OR it . Bt LL m t `c� ti az o �.-a 9 ■ Y � .� nj T IN �_ �?71t•'i`� `mss' "�� i' � � Mt .: � •f v. �� p'S � .. t� C12 n w r (D Cb avow mlvlwc"T;�� Eli e fee Flo, Ms! lilt o �� o t o 1312 cu e - — L,"XnC7 k71>19Qand) to9tZ IVIS re1V1 `mil'- lH7NRd aaaa Hlvumoi+ WD-W9 oix> g Y , 53NW 9QRIM �z s T + t '�" �. - 1 Ord + i 1F ! o- + l 19 � • � EF F`� �; EI ri i � � if IL :�� all Mill M � 9 1 h F rt 0 y gg p ti. 1 sit I �a, a. S ♦, t 7 � I ! � I 6 1 d9� y - �-� a a a a ►��� c d� f 0 W4.. ql�p NNW 41F Il k t o or tfJ w m at CA CMG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04 -13 w4 ti� TRACY ALT a ar Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors w A � Prepared: July29, 2013 ;J3B Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 07/17/13 Board of Supervisors: 08/14/13 Action Recommended approval Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit 401 -11, approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 2011, enabling an In -home Family Day Care Facility. This request is for the purpose of increasing the number of children being cared for at any given time. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than 12 children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Page 2 CUP 904 -13 of Tracy Alt July 29, 2013 LOCATION This property is located at 110 O'Briens Circle (Shenandoah Hills). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER 55F -1 -3 -140 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE This is a request for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit 901 -11, approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 2011, enabling an In -home Family Day Care Facility. This request is for the purpose of expanding Conditional Use Permit 901 -11 to allow for 12 children, rather than ten, being cared for at any given time. REVIEW EVALUATIONS Frederick - Winchester Health Department: The Health Department would have no objection to the proposal based on the following conditions: A kitchen in a private home used by a family day -care provider that serves 12 or fewer children is exempt from Health Department Food Establishment regulations and permitting. Department of Social Services: The Alt Family Day Home, operated by Tracy Alt at 110 O'Briens Circle, Winchester, Virginia, is currently licensed to care for a maximum of ten children. With approval from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, the licensed capacity may be increased to twelve (12) children. Page 3 CUP 904 -13 of Tracy Alt July 29, 2013 Planning and Zoning: An in -home daycare facility is a permitted use as a cottage occupation in the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The in -home daycare facility is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a facility in which more than five children, not including those children related to the people who maintain the facility, are received for care, protection, and guidance during only part of the 24 -hour day. The Department of Social Services currently has Ms. Tracy Alt licensed for a capacity of ten (10) children. With the approval of a new Conditional Use Permit, The Department of Social Services has granted approval to allow Ms. Alt to increase the capacity to a maximum of twelve (12) children. The current in -home daycare facility is operating within the principal residential structure on a .20 acre lot, and staff to date has not received any complaints as it relates to the existing in -home daycare. All the following approved conditions will remain the same except condition number five; which will allow no more than twelve (12) children being cared for at any given time. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/17/13 PLANNING COMNHSSION MEETING Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than twelve (12) children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one (1) employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Page 4 CUP 904 -13 of Tracy Alt July 29, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 7/17/13 MEETING: The staff noted a letter received from an adjoining property owner, dated July 8, 2013, expressing several concerns regarding this day care operation. One of those concerns involved traffic on the street. Commissioners asked the staff if any other complaints about traffic or parking from other owners along this street had been received. Staff replied no other complaints had been received. It was noted the streets within this older neighborhood were somewhat narrow without curb and gutter. Commissioners discussed with the applicant her client's arrival and pick -up times. There were no public comments during the citizen comments portion of the hearing. A Commission member said he was supportive of this CUP with 12 children, but could not support any more than 12 children at this home on this particular street. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to recommend approval of the CUP with the following conditions: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this conditional use permit shall be erected on the property. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than 12 children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) Following the required public meeting, a decision regarding this Conditional Use Permit application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. SSF 1 3 L25 racy Alt 11 Ns: maflQ3 aflfla F�flafl�i - � flafl�3 Im r flafl� i � Ma M `y Doom MaQ �fl CU 0413 55F 1 3 133 MOIL V maflfliKi flau�u �fla O Applications Q Parcels Building Footprints 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) 4 EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) 4W MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) 4W MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) - R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) 11 9 i 1 f F 1, �flafKD � - - - - -- �` Fx'�flafl3:! L �J1ti� ■ i et�� e e f!R1fIG:: �fl 3u 3 P � ° Py 11 �r . f ■ oq ■ I 1 0 f ma w i3 ■ o 0 0 Note: Frederick County Dept of CUP # 04 - 13 Planning & Development Tracy A It 107 N Kent St Suite 202 10 PINS: Winchester, VA 22601 55F - 1 -3- 140 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: June 11, 2013 Staff: djohnston 0 40 80 160 Feet 2ul j TY Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the _1"'� owner other) NAME: 1 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE 2. Please list all owners, occupants (adult individuals as well as any entities occupying the property), or parties in the interest of the property: hi /q� 4 11 - husL d kt ox-r- 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 4. The property has a road frontage of n% �� feet and a depth of 13 0 feet and consists of Q acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by M ic` Q J * as evidenced by deed from - Bcw° recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D. )No. Magisterial District fled Bijd- Current Zoning R "-1 7. Adjoining Property: U SE ZONING North i� IR P East 1;�eSI 1 CIL 12 4Z South Vesj West We 8. jT:be type of use propo ed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 1 vi - Cie- C 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: 4 S . 6VZ NAME . Cam , ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# ,S F _ 1 -3- 1 39 NAME tJC 4 ` A 6&U PROPERTY ID # 1 _-�3 W NAME Vafl • 0- 1<9 C �r. PROPERTY ID# 5 ° S - U ( A NAME I)O h n a SSG er PROPERTY ID# 5 '°' �'�° 4 NAME "K&44 PX' PROPERTY ID# NAME in r�gvim� ADDRESS 11 Z DBYl (,Jill- 1(a - ADDRESS TJ1 Vt1( l) IV, . \/Z ADDRESS 33fl TJ O dam, 0-� V�. ADDRESS I I I Vl i,l tv UJ )J- V� ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address .Vn. Owners' Telephone No. _5� ` �� �— 31P A TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: July 8, 2013 Dept. of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent St., Ste. 202 Winchester, VA 22601 -5000 ATTN: Mark R. Cheran Zoning Administrator RE: Conditional Use Permit Application #04 -13 of Tracy Alt My name is Victoria McCray and 1 reside at 112 O'Briens Circle in Winchester, VA. I would like to give voice to a few concerns about the In -home Family Day Care Facility run next door at 110 O'Briens Circle at Property ID# 55F -1 -3 -140. The reason 1 am not at the public hearing is that I am disabled and cannot drive after dark. First of all, I have heard child care providers at the home day care speaking harshly and raising their voices at the toddlers as they played outside in the backyard. I heard this quite a few times this summer (2013) and many times last summer (2012). My primary concern at this time is that adding more children would make care more difficult to manage and would result in less control and safety for the children. My second concern is regarding traffic on O'Briens Circle when the children are dropped off and picked up. The many cars arriving and departing would add congestion to an already busy area. We are very close to a "cut through" and a stop sign, and backed -up traffic could cause problems. Thirdly, our residential mailbox is often blocked by parked cars now. I'm sure that would be a bigger problem with more cars needing to park nearby. I appreciate you for taking the time to consider my concerns. Sincerely, 4 Victoria McCray - �-- 112 O'Briens Circle Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 303 -5026 cc: file REZONING APPLICATION #09 -12 CLEARBROOK RETAIL CENTER Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: December 18, 2012 (Updated: February 5, 2013, August 2, 2013) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 01/02/13 Public hearing held; Action tabled 45 days 02/20/13 Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 08/14/13 Pending PROPOSAL To rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. LOCATION The property is located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81. UPDATE, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/14/13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: At the second Planning Commission meeting, for reasons summarized on page 10 of this report, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this rezoning request. In general, the Planning Commission expressed that the changes in the application didn't eliminate the traffic problems that currently exist and believed that they will be exacerbated by additional development. They questioned if the timing was right for this project and whether it was reasonable to plan and allow a project to be built which may cause problems and inconvenience to the adjoining residents. Prior to the second Planning Commission meeting, February 2, 2013, the Applicant revised their proffer statement (dated January 28, 2013) in an attempt to address input they received during the initial Planning Commission meeting and at a follow up meeting with the neighbors. Proffer 5.b. and 5.c. were added to the modified proffer statement to address future interparcel access and timing of construction activities on the site. Since the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, the Applicant has revised their proffer statement, most recently dated June 5, 2013. The revised proffer statement offers a cash proffer in lieu of the Hopewell - Brucetown intersection design (proffer Le.). Previously, following a public hearing on January 2, 2013, at which four neighbors spoke in opposition to the request, The Planning Commission tabled the request for 45 days. This was to allow the applicant time to clarify the perceived disconnect between the LOS within the TIA and the maximum daily trips proffered, and in addition, to allow time for the applicant to carry out more discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. It had also been pointed out by staff that Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 2 the Applicant's proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads was similar to the approach proffered with Rezoning #18 -06 of Woodside Commercial. The B2, Business General, land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The Applicant has made efforts to address the impacts associated with this request and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in this rezoning application when compared to the previously unsuccessful application for this property, Rezoning 409 -07. With regards to the transportation impacts, it is recognized that the Applicant has provided proffers aimed at addressing those impacts identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the Commission evaluated if the Applicant's proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. An acceptable level of service (Level of Service C or better), is not achieved at this intersection as identified in the Applicant's TIA. Ultimately, the Planning Commission did not believe this application adequately addressed the impacts associated with the request. As stated, the Applicant has since further modified the proffers to offer a cash proffer in the amount of $75,000 in lieu of the Hopewell - Brucetown intersection design. Followinz the required public hearinz, a decision rezardin,- this rezonin,- application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 3 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 01/02/13 Public hearing held; Action tabled 45 days 02/20/13 Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 08/14/13 Pending PROPOSAL To rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. LOCATION The property is located 700 feet south on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671), fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER 33 -A -125 PROPERTY ZONING RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE Residential and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE North: RA (Rural Areas) South: B3 (Industrial Transition) East: B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential Use: Vacant Use: Vacant Residential Use: Agricultural /Interstate 81 Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: District Planning has completed our review of the subject TIA (2n submittal dated 9/17/12), and finds that our previous comments have been adequately addressed. Fire and Rescue: Plans approval recommended. Fire Marshal Plans approved. Public Works Department: We have no comments related to the proposed rezoning. Consequently, Public Works grants our approval of the proposed rezoning. Department of Inspections: No Comments. Sanitation Authority: The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the Authority's public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area covered by the Authority. Based on the anticipated usage, water capacity is presently available. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste water treatment plant is presently available. Conveyance capacity will be contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing force main. Both water and sanitary sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site. Service Authority: No comments. Frederick - Winchester Health Department No objection if public water and sewer are provided and the sewage disposal system easements are protected by a 20' buffer. Parks & Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Historic Resources Advisory Board Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does identify a core battlefield within this area. Frederick County Public Schools: FCPS offers no comments. Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 5 Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated June 26, 2012, from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. Transportation: Included within attached memo (page 2) dated June 22, 2012, from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning Department: Please see attached memo dated June 22, 2012, from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A -2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2009, The Board of Supervisors, following a unanimous recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission, denied Rezoning Application 909 -07 for the same property primarily for the following reasons. The Commission and Board members expressed concern that transportation impacts demonstrated by the TIA for this particular location were not fully addressed or mitigated by the applicant's proffer. In addition, the project would not provide a LOS "C" or better at the two major intersections on Route 11. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. Appendix I, the Area Plans, of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 6 Land Use. The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SW SA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan designates the site for business use. The B2 zoning request is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. Site Access and Transportation. Plans for new development should provide for the right -of -ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does include this portion of the County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility. Also in the vicinity are identified improvements to the interchange with Interstate 81 and the potential realignment of Brucetown Road, with the road plans identifying a potential connection north of its current location, across Route 11 from the proposed access to this site. The Plan states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The Level of Service at the nearby Route 11 and Hopewell Road intersection falls below this expected Level of Service. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter - parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Pedestrian accommodations have been addressed with this project with the construction of a bike and pedestrian path along Route 11. 3) Site Suitability /Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. This area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has previously identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design. 4) Potential Impacts The application's proffer statement limits the amount of acreage that is available for commercial development to 7.5 acres and further limits the development by capping the maximum amount of average daily vehicle trips to 5,734. Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 7 Frederick County Transportation Comments: Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner, has expressed that the Applicant's recognition of off -site transportation impacts is appropriate. The Applicant's proffer to provide engineering services to address the potential realignment of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads with Route 11 is a positive step to addressing the failing level of service in this location. However, consideration should be given to speeding up the time frame for completion of this project to less than 36 months. In addition, it may be worthwhile including an evaluation of the realignment that directly aligns with the access to this area of commercial development. Transportation had also commented that the Applicant's proffer to contribute a fixed amount of $100,000 towards the construction of a roundabout at this location should a signal not be installed, should be evaluated. In case this amount is insufficient to construct roundabout intersection improvements, the Applicant should consider constructing this improvement outright, if warranted. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 24, 2012 and revised on October 23, 2012 A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan. The Plan identifies the areas of development and recognizes the existing drainfields located on the property which serves the adjacent residences. Disturbance in and around this area would be prohibited consistent with the GDP. B) Land Use The application's proffer statement limits the amount of commercial development to that which generates less than the 5,734 Average Daily Trips as presented in the TIA. The Applicant further prohibits the development of Truck Stops — Retail as defined in SIC 5541, and Adult Retail. The Applicant has provided additional landscape screening above that required by ordinance, adjacent to the neighboring residential properties. The Applicant has proffered a split rail fence along Route 11. The other corridor enhancement proffers may be considered redundant as the Applicant on the GDP has identified this as an undeveloped stormwater management area. C) Access Management. Access to the property will not be directly to Route 11. Rather, the adjacent property will be used to provide inter - parcel accessibility_ This property is known as the Clearbrook Business Center. Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 8 D) Transportation The proffer statement provides for right -of -way dedication along Route 11 and the construction of a 12 foot travel lane across the frontage of the site along Route 11. It should be clarified that this improvement would be extended along the frontage of the adjacent property to the South which will be the only access to this site as part of the initial development of the site. The application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and the site by proffering into a signalization agreement for a traffic light at the intersection. The proffer enables the Applicant to apply a monetary amount to this intersection should a roundabout be the intersection of choice based on the Eastern Road Plan. In case this amount is insufficient to construct roundabout intersection improvements, the Applicant should consider constructing this improvement outright, if warranted. The application addresses the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell Road, Route 672, by proffering to present the County with a feasibility study and engineered road plan for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike, the general scope and location of the study being depicted on exhibit A of the proffer statement. The Planning Commission should evaluate if this approach sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. E) Community Facilities This application proffers a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.10 per building square foot for Fire and Rescue Services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 01/02/13 PLANNING CONIlMSSION MEETING: The B2, Business General, land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The impacts associated with this request have generally been addressed by the Applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in this rezoning application. With regards to the transportation impacts, it is recognized that the Applicant has provided proffers aimed at addressing those impacts identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the Commission should evaluate if the Applicant's proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. An acceptable level of service (Level of Service C or better), is not achieved at this intersection as identified in the Applicant's TIA. Followinz the required public hearinz, a recommendation re- ardinz this rezoninz application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planninz Commission. Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 9 PLANNING COMIVHSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 1/02/13 MEETING Four adjoining property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. They believed the commercial retail center next to them would devalue their residential properties and negatively affect their quality of life. Some said their access for the granted easement to the inter - parcel connector road was blocked by neighbors' existing drainfields, driveways, and parking areas. The residents expressed concern they would not be able to sell their residentially -zoned properties because they were surrounded by commercial development and they could not afford to rezone their properties to commercial. There were concerns about additional traffic congestion and that the LOS at Route 11 and Hopewell Road falls below LOS "C." One property owner believed the traffic signal at Brucetown and Hopewell has negatively impacted Route 11 and has created a situation where vehicles are caught stopped on the railroad tracks going south on Route 11; there were also negative comments about the misaligned traffic signals on Route 11 at Redbud Road. They did not think it was practical to install yet another traffic signal. Concerns were expressed that existing residential drainfields, as well as well water, may be negatively impacted from the commercial development. Residents said they were not inclined to hook up to public water and sewer because it was so costly. A Commission member raised an issue about the incompatibility between the applicant's estimated ADT based on peak hour traffic in the TIA and the applicant's proffer statement which limited the amount of daily trips. The issue was the proffered daily trip generation was a rather high number, but the TIA was based on about one tenth of that number, resulting in the incompatibility between the two calculations. The Chairman commented that the transportation impacts were the initial dilemma for this property and she asked the applicant how this application is attending to those issues brought forward by the Board of Supervisors. The applicant replied this submittal differed from the original because it uses an inter - parcel connector for access to the property; the access is moved further south on Martinsburg Pike, away from the intersection of Cedar Hill Road and Martinsburg Pike. Other questions from the Commission included the appropriateness of the dollar amount proffered for the traffic signal; verification that any modification to the MDP would require re- submittal for review by the Planning Commission; how the proffered limitation on the ADT would be implemented on the site; and the appropriateness of the applicant's approach of proffering a feasibility study and engineered road plan for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads at Martinsburg Pike. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 45 days in order to allow the applicant time to clarify the disconnect between the LOS within the TIA and the maximum daily trips proffered; and, in addition, to allow time for the applicant to carry out more discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from all discussion and voting on this application. Commissioners Crockett and Lemieux were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 10 PLANNING COMIVHSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 2/20/13 MEETING Five adjoining property owners came forward to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Most of them did not see an improvement in the revised application and proffers over the last version. They believed the financial burden of the offered easements fell upon the adjoining residents. Some did not want to connect to County sewer and water services because of the cost. Concerns remained about access for the applicant's parcel, primarily how and where it would be achieved. Adjoining residents were concerned about the negative impacts from business development to their quality of life_ A request to the applicant for a dump site to be removed was not accomplished. They were concerned about the impacts of increased traffic congestion in an area that already had traffic problems. They were concerned that no specific types of businesses were designated and they speculated the applicant only wanted to sell the property after it was rezoned. They questioned the logic of potential customers driving through B3 -zoned property to get to B2 -zoned property. The applicant's representative explained that legal access has been established for this property through a previous rezoning of a parcel to the south (Clearbrook Business Center) with proffers on record. He said the proffer allows this applicant to come across the property with a shared inter - parcel connector out to Martinsburg Pike and this is what the applicant intends to do. If the Clearbrook Business Center does not develop before the Clearbrook Retail Center, the owner of the Clearbrook Retail Center would build the Wes -Luke Drive connection and the Lauren Way connection. Members of the Commission believed the developer had cleared up some of the inconsistencies in the TIA, but the clarifications of those discrepancies didn't eliminate the traffic problems that currently exist and which will be exacerbated by additional development. They questioned if the timing was right for this project and whether it was reasonable to plan and allow a project to be built which may cause problems and inconvenience to the adjoining residents. Other Commission members said to some degree, even with the limitations of the project, this rezoning was an open -ended land use equation; it will have a significant impact on existing residents and it was premature, given the conditions discussed so far, particularly with regard to transportation_ A Commission member stated that when considering this project and how the use may interact with existing residents, and also how it will contribute to the conditions and the surrounding community, the Commission needs to know more to be able to feel comfortable and confident with supporting development of this site at this point in time. It was thought it may make a difference in the future to have a better idea of what particular use was anticipated at this location. A motion was made, seconded, and passed by a majority vote to recommend denial of the rezoning application_ The majority vote was: YES (TO RECOMMEND DENIAL) Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Crockett, Crosen, Unger NO: Kenney, Manuel, Ambrogi ABSTAIN: Oates Rezoning #09 -12 Clearbrook Retail Center August 2, 2013 Page 11 Followin,- the required public hearin ,-, a decision re- ardin- this rezonin,- application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. J. REZ # 09 - 12, -_ Clearbrook Retail Center , �4 +k -: 112E 14.53 acres from RA to B2 33A 127 1, PI Ns: 33 -A -125 ' i 33 a 1zs 33 A 124 (33A� 125E' r33 °A 125D 33 A 125C j , 33 A 1256 33,A 126 33 A 125 I' 33 A 123A _ 33 A 124A 33Al23 �� � §i 33 A 129 aQ M, *O �Q C Applications : Parcels �3A�• Building Footprints 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) C Brook/ B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) aaow / / EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) v HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) ' MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) 4W MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) 4W R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R6 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) Note: REZ # 09 - 12 Frederick County Dept of Planning &Development e Clearbrook Retail Center 107 N Kent St Suite 202 14.53 acres from RA to 132 Winchester, VA 22601 PINS: 540 - 665 - 5651 33 -A - 125 Map Created: December 10, 2012 Staff: mruddy 0 0.0425 0.085 0.17 Miles GREYWOLFE, INC. _ - 1073 REDBUD ROAD WINCHESTER, VA 22603 (540) 667 -2001 (540) 545 -4001 FAX GREYWOLFEINC @AOL.COM Michael Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director June 17, 2013 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Clear Brook Retail Center Mr. Ruddy, The letter is to inform you the application for the rezoning is ready to move forward with a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Attached is a revised proffer statement that offers a cash proffer in lieu of the Hopewell - Brucetown intersection design. Thank you, r. Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE GreyW Ife, Inc Rezoning: Property: Record Owner: Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Revised Date Proffers: Magisterial District: RZ # 08 -12 Area: 14.53 acres Tax Parcel 33 -(A) -125 Mohebatullah Vahidi Clear Brook Retail Center April 24, 2012 October 23, 2012 January 28, 2013 June 5, 2013 Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2 -2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned owner hereby offer the following proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #08 -12 for rezoning of 14.53 -acres from the RA District to General Business (B -2) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owner and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this owner and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property is more particularly described as the land conveyed to Mohebatullah Vahidi from Akhter Sayef and Gous Ahmed as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office as instrument #050012825 dated June 15, 2005. Proffers 1. Transportation a. Access i. Access to the Property from Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) shall be limited to the inter - parcel connector as proffered in rezoning #01 -06 of the "Clear Brook Business Center ". The connector will be built to VDOT standards, conform to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, and be dedicated to the County for public use. ii. The owner hereby proffers to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for a traffic light at the entrance of the "Clear Brook Business Center" and Route 11. The light will be installed at the expense of the owner at such time as VDOT determines it is necessary; however, no sooner than a Master Development Plan has been approved. The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates this intersection may become a round -about in the future. If the traffic light has not been installed when sufficient right of way has been acquired by the County for the round- about, then the owner will apply $100,000 to the construction of the round- about in lieu of the traffic light. This $100,000 will be given upon request of Frederick County; however, no sooner than receiving an occupancy permit for the first building constructed on the Property. b. Turn Lane and Pedestrian Access i. The owner hereby proffers to construct a 12' lane onto Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, along the site road frontage. This +/ -237' long lane will be built to VDOT standards. This will be built prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. ii. The owner hereby proffers to construct a 10' paved hiker /bike trail along the Property's frontage with Route 11 and along the proposed inter - parcel road. This will be built prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. 2 c. Interparcel connections Upon construction of the inter - parcel connector with "Clear Brook Business Center ", the owner will allow all adjoining properties an inter- parcel connection via private ingress- egress easements through driveways or travel aisles within parking areas. The easement locations will be determined subject to approval of the Frederick County Transportation Planner. This purpose of this proffer is to allow the adjoining properties the ability to rezone in the future and eliminate their direct access to Route 11 and Cedar Hill road. (Route 672) per the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and VDOT Access Management Standards. Note proffer 5.c. d. Right of Way and Easement Dedication i. The owner hereby proffers to dedicate to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land twenty feet (20') in width along the entire frontage of the Property along the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) Right of Way. This dedication will take place prior to any site plan approval or upon request of Frederick County. ii. The owner hereby proffers a 20' drainage, pedestrian, and utility easement along the frontage of Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to Frederick County. The owner will retain the right to place the proffered split rail fence (see item 6 -A) and monument sign (see item 6 -C) within this easement. This dedication will take place prior to any site plan approval or upon request of Frederick County. e. Contributions for Road Improvements in recognition of off -site transportation impacts. i. The owner hereby proffers $75,000 to Frederick County prior to the first occupancy permit. This money may be used for Hopewell and Brucetown Road intersection alignment or any other transportation need as determined by the County. 3 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions a. The owner hereby proffers a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.10 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to each final site plan approval. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3. The owner hereby proffers that the Average Daily Trips shall not exceed 5,734 as presented in the accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis by Stowe Engineering, PLC. 4. The owner hereby proffers that the following uses shall be prohibited on the Property: a. "Truck Stops - Retail" as defined in SIC 5541. All other uses within SIC Code 5541 are acceptable when all adjoining properties no longer are zoned RA. This does not apply to properties west of I -81 or east of Route 11. b. Adult Retail 5. Considerations for neighboring residential properties: a. The owner hereby proffers to install an additional row of evergreen trees for a total of four rows in all areas required to have a "full screen zoning buffer" per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at the time of site plan approvals. b. The owner proffers that outdoor construction activities will not begin prior 7:30 AM and will conclude no later than 7:30 PM. c. The owner proffers an inter - parcel connection with the neighboring residential lots when those properties are rezoned to commercial and the drainfield easements shown on the GDP are extinguished. 6. Corridor Enhancements to be completed by prior to the first occupancy permit. a. The owner will construct a split rail fence along the road frontage of Route 11. b. The owner will not allow any parking spaces or outdoor storage to be constructed within 50' of Route 11. Any required fire lanes within this area will be grass paved. c. The owner will require each building facade along Route 11 to be constructed of wood, vinyl, glass, masonry, or stucco. However, metal siding will be allowed within the business park and on all sides not facing Route 11. 7. The Generalized Development Plan by GreyWolfe, Inc., is attached to, and hereby made part of, this proffer statement. Some aspects of this plan to note are: a. The preservation of the neighboring drainf eld easement surrounded by a non - disturbance buffer twenty feet wide. This buffer will remain in place until such time as an easement may be extinguished. b. The proposed road parallel to 1 -81 labeled Wes -Luke Drive shown on the GDP as depicted by the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owner and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: By: � �,V '4 W Mohebatullah Vahidi Commonwealth of Virginia, �6 �2 -/ 3 Date City /County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1,), day of %" , 20 By 1 ___N tart' Pub is My Commission Expires (- I JENNIFER RIGALT NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 31, 2017 COMMISSION N 7536102 5 -. ZONING BUFFER 50'BR! uj El I cn Iti wI ! i JNINOZ I ICI o� I II o-+1 a' I o C I 1 1 a I I � I I I i ! I i I , z i U1 uN t � �� P z� F i I z .I bM AGenG7 i I tiN i I lk I i e v v n L 6 i 1 Ili AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: February 20, 2013 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 14, 2013 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #09 -12 OF CLEARBROOK RETAIL CENTER WHEREAS, Rezoning #09 -12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District for Commercial Retail use, with proffers dated October 23, 2012, last revised on June 5, 2013, was considered. The property is located on Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), 700 feet south of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671), fronting Route 11 and I -81. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 33 -A -125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on January 2, 2013, and tabled the request for 45 days, and held a public meeting on February 20, 2013, and recommended denial of this request; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 14,2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, for Commercial Retail use. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner are attached. PDRes 417 -13 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 14th day of August, 2013 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Robert W. Wells Gene E. Fisher Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes 417 -13 Mike Ruddy From: Rod Williams Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:11 PM To: 'Gary Oates' Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: RE: Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning Gary, I realize that I still needed to close the loop on this. I have reviewed the revision and it is legally sufficient as a proffer statement. Roderick B. Williams County Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 722 -8383 Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370 E- mail: rwillia(a)-co.frederick.va.us From: Mike Ruddy Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:25 PM To: 'Gary Oates' Cc: Rod Williams Subject: Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning Gary. Thanks for the letter informing us that the above referenced rezoning application is ready to move forward with a public hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors. By copy of this email, I am forwarding a copy of the revised proffers to Rod Williams, County Attorney, for his review of the minor change in the proffer statement. At this time, the August 14 Board of Supervisors meeting will be the next available public hearing meeting this request could be scheduled. Thanks. Mike. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5651 (540) 665 -6395 fax. mruddy(a)co.frederick.va.us Record Owner: Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Revised Date Proffers: Magisterial District: RZ #Oq-12 Area: 14.53 acres Tax Parcel 33 -(A) -125 Mohebatullah Vahidi Clear Brook Retail Center April 24, 2012 October 23, 2012 January 28, 2013 Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2 -2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned owner hereby offer the following proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #08 -12 for rezoning of 14.53 -acres from the RA District to General Business (B -2) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the owner and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this owner and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property is more particularly described as the land conveyed to Mohebatullah Vahidi from Akhter Sayef and Gous Ahmed as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office as instrument 4050012825 dated June 15, 2005. Proffers 1. Transportation a. Access i. Access to the Property from Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) shall be limited to the inter - parcel connector as proffered in rezoning 401 -06 of the "Clear Brook Business Center ". The connector will be built to VDOT standards, conform to the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, and be dedicated to the County for public use. ii. The owner hereby proffers to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for a traffic light at the entrance of the "Clear Brook Business Center" and Route 1 I . The light will be installed at the expense of the owner at such time as VDOT determines it is necessary; however, no sooner than a Master Development Plan has been approved. The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates this intersection may become a round -about in the future. If the traffic light has not been installed when sufficient right of way has been acquired by the County for the round - about, then the owner will apply $100,000 to the construction of the round- about in lieu of the traffic light. This $100,000 will be given upon request of Frederick County; however, no sooner than receiving an occupancy permit for the first building constructed on the Property. b. Turn Lane and Pedestrian Access The owner hereby proffers to construct a 12' lane onto Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, along the site road frontage. This +/ -237' long lane will be built to VDOT standards. This will be built prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. ii. The owner hereby proffers to construct a 10' paved hiker /bike trail along the Property's frontage with Route 11 and along the proposed inter - parcel road. This will be built prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. 2 c. Interparcel connections i. Upon construction of the inter - parcel connector with "Clear Brook Business Center ", the owner will allow all adjoining properties an inter - parcel connection via private ingress - egress easements through driveways or travel aisles within parking areas. The easement locations will be determined subject to approval of the Frederick County Transportation Planner. This purpose of this proffer is to allow the adjoining properties the ability to rezone in the future and eliminate their direct access to Route I I and Cedar Hill road (Route 672) per the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and VDOT Access Management Standards. d. Right of Way and Easement Dedication i. The owner hereby proffers to dedicate to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land twenty feet (20') in width along the entire frontage of the Property along the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) Right of Way. This dedication will take place prior to any site plan approval or upon request of Frederick County, ii. The owner hereby proffers a 20' drainage, pedestrian, and utility easement along the frontage of Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to Frederick County. The owner will retain the right to place the proffered split rail fence (see item 6 -A) and monument sign (see item 6 -C) within this easement. This dedication will take place prior to any site plan approval or upon request of Frederick County. e. Contributions for Road Improvements in recognition of off -site transportation impacts. The engineering services will begin prior to the approval of first site plan or upon request by Frederick County; whichever comes first, and be completed within 36 months. The owner hereby proffers to present the County with a Transportation Feasibility Study and Engineered Road Plans for the realignment of Brucetown and Hopewell Roads (Route 672) at Martinsburg Pike. The design will extend 300' south on Martinsburg Pike from the intersection with Hopewell Road, and be bounded by the Interstate Ramps to the west, Winchester and Western Railroad to the north and the Clear Brook Fire Station to the east, and is subject to approval by VDOT. A diagram of this area for the intersection design is attached and labeled as exhibit "A ". 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions a. The owner hereby proffers a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes, of $0.10 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to each final site plan approval. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3. The owner hereby proffers that the Average Daily Trips shall not exceed 5,734 as presented in the accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis by Stowe Engineering, PLC. 4. The owner hereby proffers that the following uses shall be prohibited on the Property: a. "Truck Stops- Retail" as defined in SIC 5541. All other uses within SIC Code 5541 are acceptable when all adjoining properties no longer are zoned RA. This does not apply to properties west of I -81 or east of Route 11. b. Adult Retail 5. Considerations for neighboring residential properties: a. The owner hereby proffers to install an additional row of evergreen trees for a total of four rows in all areas required to have a "full screen zoning buffer" per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at the time of site plan approvals. b. The owner proffers that outdoor construction activities will not begin prior 7:30 AM and will conclude no later than 7:30 PM. c. The owners proffers an inter - parcel connection with the neighboring residential lots when those properties are rezoned to commercial and the drainfield easements shown on the GDP are extinguished. 6. Corridor Enhancements to be completed by prior to the first occupancy permit. a. The owner will construct a split rail fence along the road frontage of Route 11. b. The owner will not allow any parking spaces or outdoor storage to be constructed within 50' of Route 11. Any required fire lanes within this area will be grass paved. c_ The owner will require each building fagade along Route 11 to be constructed of wood, vinyl, glass, masonry, or stucco. However, metal siding will be allowed within the business park and on all sides not facing Route 11. E 7. The Generalized Development Plan by GreyWolfe, Inc., is attached to, and hereby made part of, this proffer statement. Some aspects of this plan to note are: a. The preservation of the neighboring drainfield easement surrounded by a non - disturbance buffer twenty feet wide. This buffer will remain in place until such time as an easement may be extinguished. b. The proposed road parallel to I -81 labeled Wes -Luke Drive shown on the GDP as depicted by the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the owner and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: By: .ON '6 jZ "_ Mohebatuilah Vahidi Commonwealth of Virginia, 1 Date City /County of I�RF _ To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this3c of , 20 3 i 11A 1 Z�- Notary lic My Commission Expires r 3 / — fVjna Aroinipanah „ Notary Public aF commo of Vir i is Ady� Co;rimic; ion Expires � av 9 Commission ED✓f 33719 ------------ ---------- % '� mow`, � ; 1 � � -------------- LLJ 0) PQ Impact Statement For consideration of Rezoning the lands for the Clear Brook Retail Center Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia April 24, 2012 Tax Map Number 33 -(A) -125 Totai Area: 14.53 acres Owner of Record: Mohebatullah Vahidi 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 (703) 471 -0801 ofc Contact: Gary R. Oates, LS -13, PE GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667 -2001 ofc (540) 545 -4001 fax Clear Brook Retail Center Rezoning Introduction The site is located between Route I 1 north (Martinsburg Pike) and Interstate 81 about 700' south of Cedar Hill Road (Route 67 1) and north of exit 321 in Frederick County, VA. The site has been used for residential and agricultural purposes in the past. The applicants are seeking a change in zoning from R4 to B -2 to create a commercial center consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan contained within the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions The property is currently a house with outbuildings and a field. The stormwater drains generally to the east towards through a box culvert under Route 1 1. Comprehensive Planning The site is intended to be zoned commercial per the comprehensive plan. There is public water and sewer available along Route I 1 and the neighboring property to the south. The benefit to Frederick County by approving this rezoning will be a positive economic impact from businesses through taxes, as well as employment opportunities for its citizens. Proposed Development The site will be graded, Iandscaped, and roads installed that will meet current County and VDOT specifications. There will not be any entrances built onto Martinsburg Pike. All traffic will access the inter - parcel connector as shown on the Generalized Development PIan. The development is envisioned to contain retail and office. Physical Impacts The site is not located within or near any 100 year flood plains per FEMA Flood Map No. 51069CO I50D. Furthermore, there are not any woodlands or noteworthy landscaping on site to preserve. There are existing drainfields in easements for neighboring parcels that will be left untouched. Surrounding Properties The site is bounded by Interstate 81 to the west and Clear Brook Business Center (B -3) to the south. The northern portion of the property is bounded by residential lots fronting Cedar Hill Road (Rt 67 1) and two residential lots and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) to the east. All parcels are intended to become commercial as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan, Traffic Impact and Analysis Report by Stowe Engineering is available upon request if not already provided. Sewer Conveyance and Treatment The FCSA has a 6" sewer force rain along Route 11. This retail - commercial development is expected to generate 130 gallons /day /I000 sf for a total of 15,600 gpd. The applicant will build a sewer pump station to be dedicated to the FCSA if the Authority deems it necessary. Otherwise if there are a limited number of users, they will install individual grinder pumps to be maintained privately. Water Supply The FCSA has a 12" water main along Route 11. This development is expected to generate 130 gallons /day /1000 sf for a total of 15,600 gpd. Drainage The stormwater runoff drains to Martinsburg Pike to the east. The applicant will be required to implement BMP's and other devices to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia's requirements as required by DCR. Solid Waste Disposal The Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4"' edition, uses a rate of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of floor area. A 120,000 sf development will yield 648 cubic yards per year. The solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County Landfill Facility by private licensed commercial carriers. Historical Impact There are no historically significant structures or features present. Educational Impact This development will riot create additional students for the schools. 1) Police, Fire, and Rescue Impact The development will increase the burden on fire and rescue. The applicant is offering a proffer of $0.10 per constructed building square foot to the County for fire and rescue services. Parks & Recreation Impact This development is not expected to increase population; therefore, no measurable impacts are predicted. Soils The only soil type identified on the General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia is an Oaklet silt loam ( #32B) as shown on sheet #19. This soil type is considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil are manageable for development following the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control practices. Geolo This area is also known for karst topography. Immediately to the east of this project is a limestone quarry. Soil borings and review by a geotechnical engineer is advised. Clearbrook Commercial Center is requesting rezoning of 14.53 +/- acres from Rural Agriculture to B -2 Business for the development of 120,000 square feet of retail space. This change will contribute additional traffic into the roadway network, therefore this Traffic Impact Study was prepared to evaluate those traffic impacts. The proposed rezoning is aligned with the North East Land Use Plan /Comprehensive plan, which designates the subject property for business use. The intersection analysis of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads with Martinsburg Pike show a LDS of F in the design year 2020. A planned regional project to align the intersections of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads is planned to eliminate this situation. Clearbrook Commercial Center will proffer to participate financially in that project, which will be needed regardless of this project. With that regional improvement in place, the transportation impacts of this rezoning are believed to be manageable and acceptable for this project setting. 8 Fable of Contents ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................................... ..............................1 Appendices............................................................... ............................... Introduction .............................................. ............................... ....4 .......... ............................... Purpose....................................................................................................................... ..............................4 StudyObjectives ......................................................................................................... ..............................4 Background Information ................... Transportation Improvements Assumed .................................................................... ..............................4 Transportation Improvements Planned ...................................................................... ..............................4 Development Description ................................................................... ............................... ..4 SiteLocation ................... .......................................................................... ..............................4 Descriptionof the Parcel ......................................................... ............................... ..............................5 General Terrain Features ........................................................................................ ..............................5 Location within Jurisdiction and Region ................................................................. ..............................5 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations .................................................................... ..............................5 Current Zoning ............................................... ............................... ............ ............ ..... ............................... Study Area Description ........................................................... ............................... ...7 ..... ............................... StudyArea .................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Proposed and Existing Uses ............................................................................................ ..............................7 ExistingUse ................................................................................................................ ............................... 7 ProposedUses & Access ............................................................................................ ............................... 7 NearbyUses .................................................................................... ..............................7 ExistingRoadways ....................................................................................................... ..............................7 Existing Traffic Conditions 2011 ...................................................................................... ..............................9 DataCollection ............................................................................................................ ..............................9 Analysis...................................................................................................................... ............................... 9 Background Traffic Conditions (2014) ........................................................................... .............................11 Analysis.......................................................................................................................... .............................11 Trip Generation & Distribution ...................................................................................... .............................13 TripGeneration .......................................................................................................... .............................13 TripDistribution ........................................................... ............................... ..13 2014 Build -out Conditions ............................................................................................. .............................14 T r1h l: Analysis...................................................................................................................... .............................14 Recommended Roadway improvements ....................................................................... .............................16 Design Year ( 2020) .................................................. ............................... 17 Analysis...................................................................................................................... .............................17 QueueAnalysis ............................................................................................................... .............................19 Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic ........................................................................................ .............................19 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .............................19 Appendix A Traffic Count Data Appendix B Traffic Signal Timings Appendix C Synchro LOS and Queue Reports Appendix D HCS Diverge & Merge Reports Appendix E Pre -Scope of Work Meeting Form Appendix F Cost Estimate 2 Introduction. Re Purpose This Traffic Impact Study has been prepared to support the request for the rezoning of the property known as Clearbrook Commercial Center. The project will develop 120,000 square feet of retail business space on the property. Study Objectives The objectives of this study are to determine: 1. The impacts on traffic operations that may occur within the study area as a result of constructing a commercial development. 2. Future connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities that may result from the construction of the commercial development. Transportation Improvements Assumed The following transportation improvements were assumed to be in place with the proposed commercial development: 1. A continuous auxiliary/right turn lane along the front of the property. 2. A traffic signal at the entrance to the site when warranted. 3. Pavement marking modifications needed to use the center lane as a left turn lane at the site entrance. Transportation Improvements Punned A review of the VDOT Six year Improvement Plan showed no planned construction projects in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning. A review of the 2009 -2010 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, VA displayed a proposed major improvement project on Brucetown Road (Route 672) from its intersection with Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) eastward for 0.35 miles. The project is unscheduled in the plan. This project is just south of the site on which this project is proposed. A regional roadway improvement project is also being planned by Frederick County. The project will align the intersections of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads on Martinsburg Pike. This project will eliminate the current lane constructions and greatly improve the flow of traffic through the intersection. Imm + , _ I t The subject property is located west of US Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) and south of Cedar Hill Road. Figure 1 shows the location of the property. Description tlon of the Parcel The property on which Clearbrook Commercial Center is planned is a 14.53 acre tract with frontage on •,• Route 11. A rezoning is being sought for all of the property for construction of retail businesses. General Terrain Features The site and surrounding areas have gentle grades with slopes that drain to the east. 1 -81 runs north- .,, south adjacent to the western property boundary of the rezoning area. Location within Jurisdiction and Region r The subject property is located in the Stonewall magisterial district, Frederick County, VA. Comprehensive Flan Recommendations The 2010 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Wan calls for the subject property to be developed with a business land use. Surrounding properties are also designated as business land use. Figure 2 highlights the subject property on the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan map. 4 Property Location Map I '�, f t �•� tJ q � � • r �� �-. L � .,,�7 I } -4 r i Fxir321 ' 4 Figure 1 Property Location Map Description tlon of the Parcel The property on which Clearbrook Commercial Center is planned is a 14.53 acre tract with frontage on •,• Route 11. A rezoning is being sought for all of the property for construction of retail businesses. General Terrain Features The site and surrounding areas have gentle grades with slopes that drain to the east. 1 -81 runs north- .,, south adjacent to the western property boundary of the rezoning area. Location within Jurisdiction and Region r The subject property is located in the Stonewall magisterial district, Frederick County, VA. Comprehensive Flan Recommendations The 2010 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Wan calls for the subject property to be developed with a business land use. Surrounding properties are also designated as business land use. Figure 2 highlights the subject property on the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan map. 4 Current Zoning The current zoning on the subject site is RA (Rural Agriculture). The requested zoning is B -2 Business. Surrounding lands are zoned B-3 to the south, B -3 to the east, and RA to the north and west. M,, r Uo�aeel ltsp�q) vy aswu? m Ay OWW) 71M Figure 2 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan showing Site Figure 3 Current Zoning Maim with Site Shown Study Area For the purposes of this Traffic Impact Study, the limits of the study area extend east to Martinsburg Pike, west to 1 -81, north to Cedar Hill Road Road, and south to Hopewell Road. There are no additional major intersections within 2000 feet of the site that were not included in the study. 0 .1 - M Existing Use The existing site is a house with several out buildings. Proposed Uses & Access The proposed use for the property is retail development. Access to the site will be provided via a proffered inter - parcel connector on the property to the south. A new signalized intersection on Route 11 will be constructed on the property to the south, approximately 1050 feet south of the unsignalized intersection on Cedar Hill Road. This intersection will provide access to three parcels, including the Clearbrook Commercial Center. Nearby Uses The existing land uses near the proposed site are: • North — Residential • West —1 -81 and residential • South — Vacant (zoned B -3) • East - Vacant (zoned B -3) Existing Roadways Figure 4 shows the existing roadways in the subject property. The typical sections for the roadways in the vicinity of the project are described as: • Martinsburg Pike is a rural arterial roadway with one lane in each direction and a variable direction turn lane in the center. • Hopewell Road is a rural two lane roadway with shoulders and no turn lanes in the intersections. • Brucetown Road is a rural two lane roadway with shoulders and no turn lanes in the intersections. • Cedar Hill Road is a rural two lane roadway with shoulders and no turn lanes in the intersections. • Cedar Hill Road is a rural two lane roadway with shoulders and no turn lanes in the intersections. • Woodside Road is a rural gravel surface two lane roadway. • The 1 -81 ramps are single lane ramps with shoulders. Future Transportation Improvements The subject property is located in the Virginia Department of Transportation's Staunton District, and Edinburg Residency area of responsibility. A review of the VDOT Six year Improvement Plan showed no planned construction projects in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning. 6 ti 11 00 3 Fr N O . o c� ca � o � r� U ca � w � w � +' o �U � o W � m Le The Virginia Department of Transportation continues to plan for improvements on 1 -81. Construction of the planned improvements is unscheduled. A review of the 2009 -2010 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, VA displayed a proposed major improvement project on Brucetown Road (Route 672) from its intersection with Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) eastward for 0.35 miles. The project is unscheduled in the plan. The 2010 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates long range projects that are planned to be implemented as land uses intensify in this area of the county. The long range roadway improvements planned in the vicinity of this project include the realignment of Hopewell Road to Brucetown Road, and the widening of Martinsburg. Neither project is scheduled or funded. s- I O N I. 1 Data Collection To analyze the existing traffic conditions, peak hour turning movement counts were performed at five intersections under study. These are: 0 1 -81 SB ramps and Hopewell Road • 1 -81 NB Ramps and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Hopewell Road • Martinsburg Pike and Brucetown Road • Martinsburg Pike at Cedar Hill Road 24 hour classified traffic counts were also conducted on Hopewell Road and Route 11. These counts are included in Appendix A of this report. A 'K factor' was applied to the PM peak hour volumes to obtain the average annual daily traffic (AADT). The `k` factor varied depending upon roadway. The `k' factor for Hopewell Road was determined from the intersection and 24 hour counts performed for this report. For Route 11 insufficient data was obtained in the 24 hour count to compute a `k' factor, therefore the reported VDOT'k' factor was used. The `k' factors used are: • Hopewell Rd. — 0.086 • Route 11— 0.093 r Raw count data was smoothed and balanced as needed. Analysis The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 7.0 traffic modeling software. The existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown in figure 5, the existing lane geometry and levels of service are shown in figure 6, and the modeling results (levels of service and delays and 95% queue length) are shown in tabular form in Table 1. N a L r � 4 C � C y O O � bA � .0 C W t r+ u o � N di O a F� o 0 r� as a �3fnd11Rli� n O S Y ru z. aj a F- me ly U �4 4 4 Rr g E� '7iY Q LJ l/1 O F- H O z O a O U O a •�. �w I-W 6 y � p a U w w � � o •� U W N rN 1�V�f •r - Table 12011 Existing levels of Service, Delays an 95% Queue Length Type of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue (sec) (feet) {sec} (feet} 12 EB Thru EB RT East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Unsignalized WB LT A 5.9 6 A 3.8 4 North- South: 1 -81 SB ramps WB Thru SB LIR/T B 11.9 17 B 12.1 14 EB Thru EB LT A 1.9 2 A 2.0 2 East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Unsignalized W13 RT North - South: 1 -81 NB ramps WB Thru NB LIR/T A 9.6 6 B 10.5 13 EB LIR E 57.3 143 E 58.7 205 NB LT C 24.4 39 B 19.3 60 West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Signalized North - South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB Thru C 31.3 109 C 34.0 399 SB RT SB Thru A 0.3 0 A 0.3 0 WB LIR D 43.8 118 D 46.8 121 NB RT West: Brucetown Road (Route 672) North - South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) Signalized NB Thru A 0.1 0 A 0.4 33 SB LT B 16.7 18 C 21.2 21 SB Thru C 30.5 179 C 28.4 161 WB LITIR B 12.3 1 B 14.2 2 West: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) EB LMR B 10.2 7 B 11.6 5 East: Woodside Road (Route 671) Unsignalized North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB LITIR A 7.7 1 A 7.8 4 SB LfTIR 12 Background Traffic Conditions (2014J Background traffic conditions in 2014 are those that are expected to exist without the proposed rezoning and associated development. These were established by growing the existing 2011 traffic at 1.5% per year to the build -out year of 2014. The growth factor of 1.5% was determined by VDOT Staunton District Planning staff and is based on the historical and anticipated growth in traffic volumes in the project area. Traffic on all roadways in the study area was grown at this rate. The roadway network is unchanged from the Existing Conditions (2011 conditions). One other development project is seeking a rezoning, but construction of the project is in the future and therefore it was also considered in the background traffic volumes. The traffic associated with the project was obtained from the ITE Trip Generation manual. The result is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Other Developments Contributing to Background Traffic Analysis The 2014 Background AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 7.0 traffic modeling software. The peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 8. The modeling results (levels of service, delay and 95% queue) are tabulated in Table 3. 13 Avg. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Daily Land Use Code Amount Trips In Out Total In Out Total Specialty Retail (35,500 sq ft) 814 35.5 1,556 117 126 243 100 78 178 Fast Food Restaurant w/ drive thru (4,500 sq ft) 934 4.5 2,233 126 121 247 109 101 210 3,789 242 247 489 209 179 388 Total pass -by trips @ 25% (code 814) -389 -29 -32 -61 -25 -20 -45 pass -by trips @ 40% (code 934) -893 -50 -48 -99 -44 -40 -84 T otal New Trip _ _ _ 2,507 163 _167 _ 330 140 119 _ 260_ Analysis The 2014 Background AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 7.0 traffic modeling software. The peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 8. The modeling results (levels of service, delay and 95% queue) are tabulated in Table 3. 13 w 4 J L VI O O Z I V V P iz Q C C U i �u► U -; O N n O ���ntillll�� �IlUuir +��. 0 as a a 0 x Y [q 1 IC u J n H O Z C O L C O U C � C C � �U b � a� a� � a o � c� a U �U "b L C L � o Am o �- N a� a� w r Table 3 2014 Background Level of Service, Delay, and 9S% Queue Length Type of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control Delay Queue Delay Queue LOS (sec) (feet) LOS (sec) (feet) 16 EB Thru EB RT East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Unsignalized WB LT LT A 6.3 9 A 4.6 7 North- South: 1 -81 SB ramps WB Thru SB LIR/T C 15.7 31 B 14.2 22 EB Thru EB LT A 1.2 2 A 1.3 2 East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Unsignalized North - South: 1 -81 NB ramps WB RT WB Thru NB LIR/T B 10.6 13 B 11.1 19 EB LIR D 48.6 179 E 77.8 308 NB LT B 18.7 109 C 20.8 128 West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Signalized North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB Thru C 24.1 140 D 35.4 492 SB RT SB Thru A 0.3 0 A 0.3 0 WB LIR D 49.7 152 F 82.0 212 NB RT West: Brucetown Road (Route 672) Signalized g NB Thru A D.2 0 A D.4 13 North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) SB LT C 23.1 21 C 22.3 25 SB Thru C 34.2 207 C 30.7 209 W B L1T /R B 10.4 1 B 14.0 2 West: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) EB LIT /R B 10.4 6 B 11.9 5 East: Woodside Road (Route 671) Unsignalized North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB LIT /R A 7.7 1 A 7.9 4 SB LIT /R A 7.6 D A 8.2 0 16 Trip Generation. & Distribution Trip Generation Trip generation for the planned uses was developed from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th edition based on the proposed land uses. The full build -out of the project is planned to occur by the year 2014. The [and uses and resulting trips generated by the project are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Trip Generation Trip Distribution Trips generated by the development were assigned to the roadway network based on a distribution developed with representatives from VDOT and Frederick County during the scoping meeting. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 9 and the assignment of the new trips being generated are shown in figure 10. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Avg. Daily Land Use ITE Amount In Out Total In Out Total Trips Code Shopping Center 820 120 1117 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 pass -by trips @ 25% (code 820) -27 -17 -44 -85 -92 -977 -9,911 Total New Tri s 80 51 131 254 275 530 5,734 Trip Distribution Trips generated by the development were assigned to the roadway network based on a distribution developed with representatives from VDOT and Frederick County during the scoping meeting. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 9 and the assignment of the new trips being generated are shown in figure 10. m ul Ln J U 0 0 Z h� 6� � C r C 0 G� U Q� U C U Q "b U L � U Q' a ..r � L � Q �l it m dac �y1E p' � 611 m � w ° p LLI IA � r5z}a Y a O u i x� x� <n � A a a ti a � a M I ® !' P C 6� oaL L a 0. 0. L � Q •� (SS (y < tl a w J a u O Q Z 0 O U u b w R C � S �y e i L ~ a G� � a ^� o w o bn � U AOP a ad 672 WSIOUBMITMUSTMS The 2014 build -out conditions combines the background traffic forecasted for the year 2014, and the traffic that is forecasted to result from the development of this project. The total of this traffic is called the build -out condition and is planned to occur in the year 2014. Analysis The 2014 build -out AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 7.0 traffic modeling software. The peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 11, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 12. The modeling results (levels of service, delay and 95% queue) are tabulated in Table 5. 20 N O 2 a. i LEJ J Q u O F- O Z � O y a O O � V GJ CC �, � I a � O � V o � � O O , ba O w i, t6 4� N N Leda N,11R °ad 6 �1 9 � 672 m co °p m g 9 ,O LU II V fl I F II l� � tale as F I �m lali J� 0 1� 6 °a d ° ,�r`� P Elti� 7 O 2 sv a r� a a c � C O to U � O v P C C? T� A \I w .AI v-+ y O 1 O M O L N L. rd L O bA . r+ W w Q U Ln O F- I— O z Table 5 2014 Build-out Level of Service for Scenario 1, [delay, and 95% Queue Length Type of AM Peak Dour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control Delay Queue De=c.))((f LOS (sec) (feet) LOS (s 23 EB Thru E 60.9 183 D 53.9 160 EB RT East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Unsignalized WB LT A 6.5 10 A 5.5 12 North - South: 1 -81 SB ramps Si nalized g NB Thru A 0.2 0 A 0.1 0 WB Thru C 26.5 24 C 22.7 33 SB LIR /T C 17.8 43 D 25.7 73 EB Thru B 19.7 2 D 25.2 9 West: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) EB LT A 1.1 2 A 1.1 2 East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Unsignalized WB RT North - South: 1 -81 NB ramps NB UT /R A 7.8 1 A 8.1 6 WB Thru A 7.6 0 A 83 0 NB LIRIT B 11.0 17 B 13.4 38 EB LIR E 62.0 297 F 506.9 626 NB LT C 22.5 122 B 19.6 118 West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Signalized NB Thru C 29.6 159 D 42.4 541 North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) SB RT A 9.5 12 B 18.1 123 SB RT A 7.4 100 B 14.9 29 SB Thru A 0.3 5 A 0.4 50 23 WB LIR E 60.9 183 D 53.9 160 NB RT West: Brucetown Road (Route 672) North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) Si nalized g NB Thru A 0.2 0 A 0.1 0 SB LT C 26.5 24 C 22.7 33 SB Thru D 42.7 264 C 48.1 447 WB UTIR B 19.7 2 D 25.2 9 West: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) EB L TIR B 10.6 8 B 12.3 10 East: Woodside Road (Route 671) Unsignalized Norlh- South; Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB UT /R A 7.8 1 A 8.1 6 SB LIT /R A 7.6 0 A 83 0 EB L C 24.8 . 34 S 18.4 90 EB R C 23.3 23 B 16.6 43 NB LT C 25.3 73 C 26.4 205 West: Site Entrance North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) Signalized NB Thru A 3.0 34 A 6.4 123 SB RT A 9.5 12 B 18.1 123 SB Thru A 7.4 100 B 14.9 29 23 The primary effect on traffic operations identified in the traffic modeling is the cumulative effect of the growth in background traffic and traffic from other planned developments. This accumulated traffic on the width restricted roadways (Hopewell and Brucetown Roads), results in a LOS of F for the Hopewell Rd and Brucetown Road approached to Martinsburg Pike in the design year 2020. Traffic congestion has long been a problem in this intersection, and Frederick County has begun long range planning for improvements here. There are no practical short term solutions to this problem, which is why a more regional solution is being developed. Since the regional improvements will be expensive and involve right of way acquisition from potentially unwilling project participants, it is recommended that Clearbrook Commercial Center make a financial contribution to these improvements, to help the county and VDOT carry out the needed improvements. Approaches in two other intersections report a LOS of D in the design year 2020. These are the SB 81 off ramp at Hopewell Rd and the WB Woodside Rd at Martinsburg Pike. The SB 81 off ramp carries 171 vehicles in the PM peak hour with 17% trucks and a 28.8 second average delay. The queue at 95% is reported to be 84' long, so there is no impact on the mainline traffic operations. The Woodside Road approach carries 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour with an average delay of 28.4 seconds. While the approach LOS of D is less than the desired LOS of C, all other approaches in both intersections operate at either LOS A or B in 2020. The minimal impacts to traffic operations resulting from the LOS of D in these approaches indicate that these intersections should be reevaluated at a future time as more development occurs. As for now, no improvements are proposed. There are improvements that are appropriate at the entrance for this development. These are: 1. Development of a traffic signal at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and the proposed commercial entrance at the time when warranted. 2. Construction of a continuous right turn lane in the southbound direction along the property frontage. This lane might be used as a future basic lane when Martinsburg Pike is widened. 3. install new pavement markings on Martinsburg Pike to properly direct traffic at the new traffic signal. Design Year (2020) The design year for the project is six years beyond the compietion of the project, which in this case is the year 2020. Analysis The 2020 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 7.0 traffic modeling software. Peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 16, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 17. The modeling results (levels of service, delay and 95% queue) are tabulated in Table 6. a r>3 a CL {T4J05 a ry ^ uj m Z n Q a m 0 C C Z Rk "b � V h M+� � •lef LU A 14 AA, �� a6t1o A �154E177} Q c eC a Qj 9110- P ° k d' n� 11191 1. '1 y �Y Road ka IXT ter 0 Dpewetl � 672 A A g� PSI � e� ►` 9811171 Ssa4z � 1 , _. 109 {246).. 203(F61} � `4C S zs4zsl� r!°� r- r'4 Aim Ri 612 o �� P� a u E1tl 4 4 a c 3� L O m a. a Q LU J a U V1 O H O Z O CC In Z► C O U O O �U � x po .� o � yU F'M � �} Q 6� x O Q � U P� Q� h"I Table 6 202€3 Design Year Level of Service, Delay, and 95% Queue Length Type of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue (sec) (feet) (sec) (feet) EB LT EB Thru 33 C 34.6 123 EB RT C 25.7 EB RT 29.6 52 West: Site Entrance Signalized NB LT C 33.0 East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) C 33.2 136 North - South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB Thru A 1.1 36 A North- South: 1 -81 SB ramps Unsignalized Wg LT A 6.5 11 A 5.5 13 SB Thru WB Thru 131 B 14.8 175 SB L /R/T C 19.2 49 D 28.8 84 EB Thru EB LT A 1.1 2 A 1.1 2 East -West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Uns +finalized WB RT North- South: 1 -81 NB ramps WB Thru NB L/R/T B 11.2 19 B 13.9 42 EB L/R E 66.9 336 F 98.7 688 NB LT C 25.3 136 C 342 185 West: Hopewell Road (Route 672) Signalized NB Thru C 32,9 186 E 74.0 772 North - South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) SB RT SB Thru A 0.3 0 A 0.4 3 WB L/R E 71.1 203 F 152.0 334 NB RT West: Brucetown Road (Route 672) Signalized g North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB Thru A 0.2 0 A 0.3 25 SB LT C 20.7 28 C 28.3 48 SB Thru D 35.8 296 D 52.8 440 WB LMR B 12.1 2 D 28.4 10 West: Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) EB L/T /R B 10.8 8 B 12.8 11 East: Woodside Road (Route 671) Unsignalized North- South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB LIT /R A 7.8 1 A 8.2 7 SB LIT /R A 7.6 0 A 8.5 0 EB LT C 27.4 33 C 34.6 123 EB RT C 25.7 22 C 29.6 52 West: Site Entrance Signalized NB LT C 33.0 53 C 33.2 136 North - South: Martinsburg Pike (US 11) NB Thru A 1.1 36 A 4.0 195 SB RT A 9.3 15 B 17.7 35 SB Thru A 7.1 131 B 14.8 175 Queue Analysis At signalized intersection, a queue forms while vehicles wait to advance. An analysis was performed to evaluate the back of the queue for the 50th and 95th percentile of the queue. The 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical traffic signal cycle. The 95th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes when traffic does not move for two signal cycles. The queues associated with the 95 percentile maximum queue are shown in Tables 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. As traffic volumes increase over time, the queue associated with left turning movements will increase as will the queue associated with the thru movement that opposed the left turn movement. This is reflected in the Design Year analysis. Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic To identify any previously planned pedestrian and /or bicycle facilities in the project area, the Winchester - Frederick County MPO Bike and Pedestrian Mobility Plan was reviewed. This plan depicts planning level concepts for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with none being shown in the immediate vicinity of this project. None were shown. On -site facilities will be planned to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian movements on site, and provisions will be made for future connections to off -site trails which may come to the site. The Clearbrook Commercial Center rezoning will contribute additional traffic into intersections along Martinsburg Pike, and Hopewell Road at 1 -81. The Martinsburg Pike intersections of Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road report a LOS of F in the design year 2020. The remedy to this problem is large in scale and cost, and is being pursued as a regional transportation improvement by Frederick County. it is recommended that Clearbrook Commercial Center participate financially in this project to eliminate this congested area. A new traffic signal should be installed at the entrance to the site, along with the associated turn lanes and pavement markings. With the regional improvements discussed herein, the transportation impacts of this rezoning are believed to be manageable and acceptable for this project setting. 29 1 I 1 + 1 WM Cif 4) v1ti mz ce U �m U L W H ti " m 4 Y Mk CC U a Ab'M Qf3NRYl v Vrk C r ! Y �z a 1 � Q .F-- �- a W I �_� it . R W•. _, i 1 Ic Ad .4141 tid.�_. .•� - ....- + �,� 1 r R► hv EA cc > { 1 I 1 + 1 WM Cif 4) v1ti mz ce U �m U L W H ti " m 4 Y Mk CC U a Ab'M Qf3NRYl v ! %x r ! Y �z a ! %x COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Gary Oates GreyWolfe, Inc. FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP rDeNun Director RE: Rezoning Comments: Vahidi — Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning. DATE: June 22, 2012 The following comments are offered regarding the Vahidi — Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) with Proffers. The review is generally based upon the proffer statement dated April 24, 2012, and the Impact Analysis Statement also dated April 24, 2011 Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed- At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. General 7 Ali c,.rc that _ , , - e y t_ -._. 1 ,.. Plea : '.ix�,.��, �. � a`it all + L 1+� ait: i. �.��_ uiy app ' lii(i Lt,rl aiJ cTrE Jll i UllZlti.�lL WAtlr application. Consider including the additional parcel containing the existing use. 2. The submission fee for this application would total $1 1,453.00 based upon acreage of 14.53 acres, plus the appropriate amount for public hearing signs. Land Use 1) The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. Appendix I includes the Northeast Land Use Plan as an approved Area Plan. 2) The property is located within the SWSA. 3) The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with a commercial land use designation. In general, the proposed commercial land use designation for this property is consistent with this commercial land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Vahidi — Clearbrook Retail Center Rezoning Comments June 22, 2012 Page 2 Impact Analysis Statement Please address the following items from the Impact Analysis Statement prepared for this Application. 1) The Impact Analysis states that there are existing drainfields in easements for neighboring properties that will be left untouched. This is also depicted on the Generalized Development Plan. i. This preservation should be addressed in the proffer statement text, ii. The Generalized Development Plan should be incorporated specif cally into the proffer statement, Transportation The following transportation comments have been provided by John Bishop, County Transportation Planner, and should be considered as the County Staff's position on this component of the rezoning, I. Why would the Applicant fully fund a traffic signal (proffer l,a, ii), but only contribute 100,000 to the roundabout. This needs to be equal value, or they could just construct it outright. 2. 1 think the proffer to design the roadway improvements at Brucetown Hopewell is a good one, but I'd like additional language that they would design through VDOT approval Proffer Statement 1) Exhibit A — a diagram for the area for the intersection design should be provided with the proffer statement. 2) The proffer statement would preferably read "to .Frederick County for Fire and Rescue purposes ". In conclusion, please ensure that the above comments, and those offered by the reviewing agency, are addressed. MTR/bad GREYWOLFE., INC. 1073 REDBUD ROAD • WINCHESTER, VA 22603 ✓ (540) 667 -2001 • (540) 545 -4001 FAX Y GREYW OLFEINC @AOL.COM f Mike Ruddy, Fredrick County Planning October 16, 2012 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Clear Brook Retail Center Mr. Ruddy, This is to provide a written response to your comments from June 22, 2012. Although I resolved these with John Bishop and yourself verbally, I thought a written response for the files would be appropriate. Impact Statement 1. The GDP and drainfield easement preservation have been added to the proffers. Transportation 2. The fully funded light signal for this intersection was estimated to be $100,000 by the traffic engineer since this is a simple "Tee" intersection. That is way the proffer offers a $100,000 contribution for the alternative round -a -bout. 3. The language to insure the design is approved by VDOT has been added to the proffer. Proffer Statement 4. Exhibit A has been added to the proffers. 5. The wording for the Fire and Rescue funds has been corrected. Thank you, Gary Oates, LS -B, PE Grey olfe, Inc 7 0 C 7 FI _i..�iL GOUKTY COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/7228383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@cofrcder June 26, 2012 VIA FACSIMILE — (540 ) 545 -4001— AND REGULAR MAIL Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 Re: Rezoning Application, Parcel Number 33 -A -125 (the "Property "), Owned by Mohebatullah Vahidi — Proffer Statement dated April 24, 2012 Dear Gary: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement dated April 24, 2012 (the "Proffer Statement ") for the proposed rezoning of 14.53 acres, constituting property of Mohebatullah Vahidi, Parcel Identification Number 33 -A -125, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: 1. The terra "applicant" within the text of the Proffer Statement should generally be changed to "owner ". This is an updated practice, to ensure clarity with respect to the fact that the proffer obligations are those of the owner, and not of the applicant, and run with the land. 2. For clarity, throughout the Proffer Statement, the best practice would be to refer to the property proposed to be rezoned as the "Property ", instead of variously as "the subject properties ", "this property ", "the 14.53 acre property ", and the like. 3. Proffer l.a.ii. — Concerning the scenario of the $100,000 proffer for the construction of a roundabout, the Proffer should use a more definite triggering event, such as issuance of a building permit, rather than "after the first building is constructed ". 4. Proffer l .b.ii. — The Proffer should state a definite time that the trail construction obligation will vest. Also, it may be helpful to clarify that the trail construction will be along the Property's frontage along Route 11 and the inter - parcel road. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE June 26, 2012 Paoe 2 5. Proffer l .d.ii. — The Proffer should state a definite time that the easement dedication will occur. 6. Proffer l .e.i. — This Proffer refers to an exhibit regarding the Route I 1 /Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road intersection, but I did not see such an exhibit among the materials I received. The exhibit would need to be included with the Proffer Statement, 7. Proffer 4.a. — The Proffer should clarify regarding whether the condition is lifted upon the first to occur of all adjoining properties no longer being zoned RA or all adjoining properties no longer containing a residential use. Also, the Proffer should clarify regarding the length of any lapse required before a property is considered as no longer containing a residential use. Finally, the Proffer might clarify that the condition does not involve any properties located to the west of Interstate 81. 8. Proffer 6.a. — The Proffer should clarify regarding whether the fence will be just along the Route I 1 frontage or also the internal road frontage. 9. In addition to the adjoining properties listed in the materials you have provided, notification of the rezoning application, if the application is filed, will also need to be sent to the owners of any properties across Interstate 81 from the Property. See Va. Code § 15.2- 2204(B) (requiring notice to owners "of all abutting property and property immediately across the street or road from the property affected "). I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sincerely yours, �oderick B. Williams Counvy A ti, v'i - AX vy cc: Michael Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning and Development REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. Fee Amount Paid $ Zoning Amendment Number Date Received PC Hearing Date 1Iz.. L' 7 _ BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: GreyWolfe, Inc. - Gary R. Oates, ZS -B, PE Address: 1073 Redbud Road Telephone: 540 -667 -2001 Winchester, Virginia 22603 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Mohebatullah Vahidi Address: 794 Center Street Telephone: (703) 471 -0801 Herndon, VA 20170 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Gary R. Oates Telephone: 667 -2001 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 12 S. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Mohebatullah Vahidi 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Resideintial and Agriculture B) Proposed Use of the Property: Commercial 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 33- (A) -125A Residential RA 33 -(A) -1258 Residential RA 33- (A) -125C Residential RA 33- (A) -125D Res RA 33- (A) -125E Residential RA 33 -(A) -123 Vacant B -3 S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): 700' South on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Route 671) and fronting Route 11 and Interstate 81 in the Clear Brook area. 13 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 0 Townhome: 0 Multi - Family: 0 Non - Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Horne: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: 120,000 Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 10. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the :Front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. 1 (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: Date: Owner(s): A '9 Date: t -- �J . Date: 14 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right -of -way, a private right -of -way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name R& Land development, LLC 1631 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 Propert # 33 -(A) -123 Name Elaine MaGee 3703 Martinsburg Pike Clear Brook, Virginia 22624 Property #33— (A) -125A Name Debra Driver 3721 Martinsburg Pike Clear Brook, Virginia 22624 Propert # 33- (A) -125B NamePhilip Martin P.O. Box 113 Brucetown, Virginia 22622 Propert # 33- (A) -125C Name Mr. & Mrs. Mark Regan 2000 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, Virginia 22624 Property #33— (A) -125D Name M r. & Mrs. Daniel Schall 2042 Cedar Hill Road Clear Brook, Virginia 22624 Property #33 (A) -125E Name SilverWolfe, LLC 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 Propert #33- (A) -124A Name Frederick Stronko 3656 Martinsburg Pike Clear Brook, Virginia 22624 Propert #33-(A) -124D Name Bradley Blain 35 Flatt Road Rochester, New York 14623 Property # 33 -(A) -124 15 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Website: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone (540) 665 -5651 Facsimile (540) 665 -6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (W) (Name) Mohebatullah Vahidi (Phone) (703) 471 -0801 (Address) 794 Center Street, Herndon, VA 20170 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ( "Property ") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 050012825 on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: Biock: Section: Subdivision: 33 -(A) -125 do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) GreyWolfe, Inc. _ Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE, Tim Stowe, PE (Phone) 540 -667 -2001 (Address) 1073 Redbud Road, Winchester, Virginia, 22603 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permit Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Variance or Appeal My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of 3'}_j�e 20„ Signature(s) r_� <J State of Virginia, City /County of P���( To -wit: I, _l�'ja✓�JjQ /�rfi f�,f a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) wh signed to the foregoing instrument ersonally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me i>1 the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of 1),eC , 20. Notary Public <. Notary Public of 'I Commonwealth of Virginia - , 3 - )-)3 commission [Do FINRL PLRT OOUNORRY LIME ROJU5TMENT BETWEEN LOT I PHILIP K. MARTIN LOTS c THE LAND OF DENNIS AND & VIRGINIA B. 829PG03 U STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIR51NIR I. SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 1, DAVID M. FURSTENAU, A DULY AUTHORIZED LAND SURVEYOR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE MAY LAND OF THIS ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNDARY LIN£ ADJUSTMENT IS IN THE NAMES OF DENNIS J_ AND VIRGINIA B. MAY AND IS ALL THE LAND CONVEYED TO THEM BY DEED DATED MAY 25, 1990 AND RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IN DEED BOOK 745 AT PAGE 745 AND LOT I OF THE PHILIP K. MARTIN LOTS IS THE NAME OF PHILIP K. MARTIN AS CUSTODIAN FOR ANDREA RENEE MARTIN AND WAS CONVEYED TO HIM BY DEED DATED JANUARY 26, 1990 AND RECOf ED/I DEED BOOK 137 AT PAGE 662. DAVID M. FURSTENAU L.S. OWNERS' CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF THE LAND OF DENNIS J. & VIRGINIA B, MAY AND LOT 1 OF PHILIP K, MARTIN LOTS IS IN AC RDANCE WITH THE DESIRES AND WITH THE FREE CONSENT OF THE UNDER IGNE O HERS, PRO IETOits', ND TRUSTEES IF ANY, DE IS J. AY V RGI IA B. AY PrTIL ARTTN STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY /C NTY OF o ff_ TO WIT: I A NOTARY U LI IN ND F R THE THE STATE V I AND TH CITY /COUNTY HEREB C RTIFY TH ,THIS DA RSONALL A A E BE E WHOSE NAMES ARE YNED TO TH ABOVE OWN RS' CER IFICA DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 1994 AND ACKNOWLEDGE TO THE SAME H FORE ME IN MY STATE ANDS CITY/ COUNTY AS AFORE AID GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS — / -- .DAY OF __1994 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES fyl y_Dpg1 1 1ni5:�:� , i ;i rr' -asl < ;.sea 4 �a I�ry� APPROVED FREDERICK COUNTY - 5U V / ADN41L5 / DATE OAT[: SEPT, 23, 1954 .FURSTENAU SURVEYING D17q. _0 CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 i of 2 GF 2 TAX MAP # 33 —A— 125 S 1258 ZONE RA USE: RESIDENTIAL � Z INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 _N 29 "E 856.44' `- w 100 'r 3 RL_ !� eaRra MAY M N o REMAUNG LAND 14.5309 ACRES N �I 0 Q URAGE q p Lrl n DWFLUW; 3 / i = ol x C7 �JOO' ti 6f rv, Q q. Q a J C 14 34 °2 8'16 "E `' lb 0 zb 14 3.39' y �r 4r /W to + YI �• C.? LOT — 4 9 , J o may 0839 ACR. 4 tq- ao + in� y4�?0• O e ) �ry`Qk Sla F s �'b C? 3 L O 0(R Rq IFS ��� 1 U.S.' ROUTE i80' MARTINSB'8016C� , �' ��Ll o yam . TABULATION BEFORE ADJUSTMENT LOT 1 1.3200 ACRES MAY 16.2948 ACRES AFTER ADJUSTMENT LOT IA 3.0839 ACRES MAY 14.5309 ACRES g o � O N t I � s - � ..r FINAL PLAT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOT 1 PHILIP-K. M4RTIN LOTS AND THE LAND OF OENN15 J. & VIRGINIA S. MGY STONEWALL DISTRICT ' ,IR IWA:FREDMC}{MUN FREI]ERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN'SA Is 'n ' r � u ee ' t Or yRltt ' da of ^K oo the are' With cerlffica to of e nf cktto2d a n:?• W0 adm'tl t remrd. Tax Imptsadnl iheratq annexed �M+.�� E by SXC 58 -54.# of ' . URSTE�a hell/ en porjl ble. STEPHENS CITY, Vinuem, CLEPK HATE' SEPT. 23, 1994 RCAL9t I" 200' DWN. 0 Y 2 OF 2 NO. RAD. DELTR ARC TRN, CHO. CHO. BRG. 1 2 1 11499.16' 02 0 0918" 00 433.63' 47.12' 216.84` 433.60' S'33 "W 3 11499.16' 00 0 44'51" 150.00' 23.56' 75.00' 47.12' 150.00' S 34 0 21'15 "W S 33 0 51'47 "W 4 11499,16' 01 236.51' 1 6' 236.50' 5 32 0 54'01 "W � Z INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 _N 29 "E 856.44' `- w 100 'r 3 RL_ !� eaRra MAY M N o REMAUNG LAND 14.5309 ACRES N �I 0 Q URAGE q p Lrl n DWFLUW; 3 / i = ol x C7 �JOO' ti 6f rv, Q q. Q a J C 14 34 °2 8'16 "E `' lb 0 zb 14 3.39' y �r 4r /W to + YI �• C.? LOT — 4 9 , J o may 0839 ACR. 4 tq- ao + in� y4�?0• O e ) �ry`Qk Sla F s �'b C? 3 L O 0(R Rq IFS ��� 1 U.S.' ROUTE i80' MARTINSB'8016C� , �' ��Ll o yam . TABULATION BEFORE ADJUSTMENT LOT 1 1.3200 ACRES MAY 16.2948 ACRES AFTER ADJUSTMENT LOT IA 3.0839 ACRES MAY 14.5309 ACRES g o � O N t I � s - � ..r FINAL PLAT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOT 1 PHILIP-K. M4RTIN LOTS AND THE LAND OF OENN15 J. & VIRGINIA S. MGY STONEWALL DISTRICT ' ,IR IWA:FREDMC}{MUN FREI]ERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN'SA Is 'n ' r � u ee ' t Or yRltt ' da of ^K oo the are' With cerlffica to of e nf cktto2d a n:?• W0 adm'tl t remrd. Tax Imptsadnl iheratq annexed �M+.�� E by SXC 58 -54.# of ' . URSTE�a hell/ en porjl ble. STEPHENS CITY, Vinuem, CLEPK HATE' SEPT. 23, 1994 RCAL9t I" 200' DWN. 0 Y 2 OF 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director DATE: August 5, 2013 RE: Public Hearing: Amended 2013 — 2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) This public hearing item is an amendment to the 2013 — 2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The County seeks to amend the current CIP to add one project, a new County /School Board Administration building, to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. With the addition of this joint project, it is necessary to remove an existing project from the CIP, the Frederick County Public Schools Administration Office Expansion and Renovation. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies and is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed or as priorities change. Project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. The Plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, the CIP is a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Following a public hearing at their July 17, 2013 meeting, the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended denial, by a majority vote, to amend the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan request because it did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners had considerable discussion of this item. Commission members stated that they did not believe they could support the request because they could not find where the Comprehensive Plan supported this. It was pointed out that not all parts of the Urban Development Area are equal in terms of their capacity to serve a facility and that it would be far 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Amended 2013 -2014 CIP August 5, 2013 Page 2 more helpful to be able to at least narrow down the area being considered for this proposed facility. Concern was expressed that the proposed project should first have been incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan itself, providing support for inclusion in the Capital Improvements Plan. With regards to the approval of the initial CIP, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), the Planning Commission, and ultimately, the Board of Supervisors previously reviewed and endorsed the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The Planning Commission expressed their belief that the CIP was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Supervisors approval occurred on January 23, 2013, following a public hearing. This new project consists of a County /School Board Administration Building, to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. The Capital Cost of the project is to be determined, as is the construction schedule. The inclusion of this capital facility will allow for improvements to general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick County and will meet the increasing need for office space, meeting space, and government services in an accessible location. Please find attached with this agenda item the draft portions of the Amended 2013 -2014 CIP which includes the added project, the County /School Board Administration building and the removed project, the Frederick County Public Schools Administration Office Expansion and Renovation, and a summary of the proposed 2013 -2014 CIP in table form. If adopted, the amended CIP and included maps will ultimately become a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which would satisfy the review requirement of Section 15.2 -2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. Attachments Draft minutes from the July 17, 2013 Planning Commission meeting Draft amended CIP language adding new project and eliminating existing project. Draft amended CIP table MTR/rsa Draft Minutes from July 17, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting: Consideration of an amendment to the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. Once adopted, the CIP is a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Frederick County seeks to amend the current CIP to add one project, a new County /School Board Administration Building, to be located generally within the County's Urban Development Area. Action — Recommended Denial Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this public hearing item is an amendment to the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to add one project, a new County /School Board Administration building, to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. Mr. Ruddy explained that with the addition of this joint project, it is necessary to remove an existing project from the CIP, the Frederick County Public Schools Administration Office Expansion and Renovation. Mr. Ruddy noted that previously, the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC), the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, reviewed and endorsed the 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). He said the Planning Commission expressed their belief the CIP was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Board of Supervisors' approval occurred on January 23, 2013, following a public hearing. Mr. Ruddy said this new project consists of a County /School Board Administration Building, to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. The Capital Cost of the project is to be determined, as is the construction schedule. He said the inclusion of this capital facility will allow for improvements to general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick County and will meet the increasing need for office space, meeting space, and government services in an accessible location. Commissioner Oates asked why this request had not gone before the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC), subsequently skipping over any discussion, and why it has gone to public hearing so quickly. Mr. Ruddy replied that the CIP in its entirety has been well vetted through the CPPC, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors through the regular process. So with this one addition, it was felt to be appropriate to move it forward directly to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission could make their evaluation solely on this one project. Commissioner Oates stated regarding public facilities within the Comprehensive Plan, this area is one that is in need of a new fire department and a new library. He said there is no land use plan addressing the location of a new County building. Mr. Ruddy noted the Comprehensive Plan is a guide which provides a general land use direction and general future guidance as to what the County would like to see and where. Therefore, for a facility serving the vast majority of the residents of Frederick County, an appropriate location would appear to be within the Urban Areas of Frederick County. Commissioner Oates commented that the proposed administrative building is now being considered as a joint administration and school board structure. He said the current administration building is 100,000 square feet and the school board's building has 30,000 square feet with anticipation of expansion. Commissioner Oates inquired if the County is considering a joint building consisting of a couple hundred thousand square feet to accommodate both expansions by putting these two entities together. Mr. Ruddy replied he did not have involvement in this level of discussion for this project at this time. Mr. Ruddy said the Board received a request for this project and they have moved it forward to the Public Works Committee, who will most likely be dealing with this over the next couple months. Mr. Ruddy recognized, however, that placing this project on the CIP was good planning, as well as considering its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Oates expressed his concern that the proposed project should first have been incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Commissioner Oates said along with the school board building, there is a need to consider transportation, water and sewer, and what location the structure should be built. He said the Commission has no idea where the structure is to be located other than the Urban Area. Commissioner Oates said he was having difficulty seeing where it is written within the Comprehensive Plan showing support for this CIP request. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone who wished to speak to come forward. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates did not believe he could support the request because he could not find where the Comprehensive Plan supported this. Commissioner Oates said it's not that he wouldn't support moving the administration building into the County, but the Commission would be putting something forward without a leg to stand on, in his opinion. Commissioner Mohn agreed with Commissioner Oates' comments. He pointed out that not all parts of the Urban Development Area are equal in terms of their capacity to serve a facility. Commissioner Mohn said he would whole - heartily agree it would be far more helpful to be able to at least narrow down the area being considered for this proposed facility. Commissioner Unger also agreed with the comments made by his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Unger commented about the public's reaction to these issues. Chairman Wilmot commented that the CIP is basically an advisory document in terms of capital facilities and the construction thereof. She said the role of the CIP is not to dictate that something has to be, or should be, in a specific location. Chairman Wilmot did agree, however, that the request should have had the opportunity to be discussed by the CPPC. Commissioner Oates next made a motion to deny the amended 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan request because it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and was passed by the following vote: YES (TO DENY) Unger, Marston, Ambrogi, Manuel, Oates, Kenney, Triplett, Dunlap, Mohn NO: Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) Attachment: County Administration Project Priority List PRIORITY 4 County /School Board Administration Building Description: This new project consists of a County /School Board Administration Building, to be located generally in the County's Urban Development Area. Capital Cost: TBD Justification: The inclusion of this capital facility will allow for improvements to general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick County and will meet the increasing need for office space, meeting space, and government services in an accessible location. Construction Schedule: TBD Frederick County Public Schools Project Priority List Y. �.MTZFM • ��� Y. "M 011 ........... Mi ♦ ♦ S O O 00 0 0 0 ° 00 0 0 0 0" ++ () O O 0) m V� m In O m O O O ( N 0 N O M O W N V O O O N M O O N O O to O O) M In O O (, N v O M 0 O O N F- N N to O to r m I- M O) N O O Cl) O ry 0r, V M O M O V M " ,f r, 00 M f� Cl) V 0) O N I- M t` (D O 0) In O V m M 0 r N r r O N O O O CF) "T m 0 y a (A O) - 00 V O) O M I- 00 V O) V co o0 M N O M N N In N V M O M V M In to o0 to o0 (O V W to V M ER ER ER ER ER ER ER M (V v) o0 0 Cl) O N U) U) N M N N R R R R R R 6% In R U 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% C\l 6% r ` O r 0 I z O O 0 0 O) 00 0 0 0 0 O O 8 O ( 00 O 00 N W O N O M In M N to (p 00 00 O O O O 0) m V m N O C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N m N O an O W to V O O O N M O O N O O to 0 O) M In O O (M C\ 'I O F- m r- M d) N O O O co V N N 0) N N O N In O to I- Cl) t` O O M O ry 0r, V w O M (D V w N "f r, 00 M In O V O) N r r O N O O O y y O) O) O Cl) V O) V CO m O m (O (D ) N N In N V M O M V co In to o0 to o0 (O 00 C 7 00 V I- 00 co o0 M lb, to V u 6% (i) U) U) U) U) 00 EA 7 Cl) (D N EiJ (R 6% (V Cl) (V U) U) U) ER ER 6% 6% (A (A O ' L U 00 � o � N � T N CO pp co ao ao O LO ° M d) N N c v W L �p N ° O c o 0 N r In u` M N Nt O ' W V 00 N N w N M 11 N N } N 6% (» (» L a 00 w a c M (o rn m Ln (o O 0 L6 V V 00 O M Lo I 7 N N } 1 M 7 L +� O 00 O 00 N 0 N c Lo o � o Lo r N N } LO N c (� 7 U9. 0 V O O 0 0 O) 00 0 0 0 0 00 O O 00 O O V U O V O O O O) m V m N O C4 m 0 0 0 O O O 0 O) O O O O N O O N O O M 00 O O C O F- N F- N N ~ In O In w O O M O V N 0) O N I- M r M O 0) In O V V M O) O M f- N O) N N M N N In In U) U V V R 00 R R M o0 M O) R R R 0) LLJ (n � 6% 6% 6% 6% � � N t 3 0 0 J 0 - (n T C O a) C ,N. a a m a (` w C o U o i O N Q U 0 a m a �6 7 M Y M O L O a) (4 C O N_ M o) S a f/) E E N O EO U U U O O E m _ 0) .� d W a N N a) - > M L SZ O O O O E > - a) C Q U U Y L d L C a) W (n O E ,O a) O O O O O O c d a) O X a) EO w Y Y (4 Y d Z LL a a cm N M ] ] W a L L L LL J U Z 3 Y N N 4 O (0 _C o a) N O M M > N N; (4 M O W> E j U Q a O ` a O Y a) L L Q E 2 lL W' a) a N 0 'O N (4 L a U U m m m o d (� 2 w :_ S a m o m a_ m C Q as m m (n Q N O O a) 3 Q N E J J (4 a) a) a H E t :z - O ° w m E r E 0 r N . w ° o Y Y a� ° m w E - a) -0 O O a a M a) :z L M tZ os os L N L a a a a= N .S .m N 2> a U a M (4 O O (B CL Y a) U L O m N m LL m Q M .5 Q d m d Q W LL W m LL > Q Q d d fn fn O J fn H a U) U z 0 ±' O O .O 0 d N W (n (n y ° o 06 06 t U Y Y Y Y Y ca (n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a a a a O a a O a O i U ca Q Q C C C C S m C S C S N (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (6 m m d d d d m d d m d m a a 0 0 co co co co 0 co co 0 co 0 N O r 1 0 to U O N r O Z C N r 7 � O r J r O U f� N O 0 p p 0 °°°° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 cm) 0 ° p 00 I- m m 'n O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 m Oc In V O O O O C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0) N O O O O O O O O O O O O O V r N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O 6% N M O O O O O N O w O w N N EiJ 0 N N O O O N O M O r (M N O 6 c % q w w w w w w w w w w w w w N O O O O O O O O O V In N N N N 00 00 O O 00 r r N N M O O N O N N N N N N N N In ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER N ER � 0 0 O O O aV N co C O a1 ;; N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o n p p m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p m m H H O O ° O ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N d) V r 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V) N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O N O DO O DO N N O O 0 0 000" O M O r M N O 6 " N N O O N O O O O ER ER O N Cl) ( f) V) O O O o o o o o o o o o o p O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O O C C C 0 C C C � 0 0 0 000 0000000000 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O DO O cc N N O O O O N O M O I- M N O_ 6 " N N 6% 6% 6% V3 6% 6% 6% ; 63 63 O O 0 LQ N 6% D2 O N L O �p N N } I I O N LL N L a c L 6 co 0 0 0 0 N N • L r O V Lo U 0 0 +�+ N N O U a r 0 m m ° O O ° O ° O r ° V 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn C\l O O O N O O O O O O C\l O O N N O O O V In 0 N N V N V 6% V 6% O O 00 O O In w r r N N In cc N N N co M ('7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 6 6% (h V) ER ER ER o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O 6% 6% N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 Lr) 00 O O O O to O to M (D O (D N C EA N V3 o y ` C m N N U 0 C a L > o d m E O d Y a) o N Z w' .� d E C C J (U m a C > m X d a) — a) w:= O 0) (0 r— V co O 0) C\l O 0) I� p 3 v ° o r o ° o w x o m ru ° 3 a > Y m = w Q Q r � (o (o (o (o ,m (o (o u) u) u) c c ' ° 0 a) Q Q x m a s m m Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q cu [� U) E E w °� ° °- a p -0 a W m c c c c c c c c Q c c c c c c c LL m m E m .? o> m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m d o o m ru ° o W >..> p` o? o > m c o o v ° J 0 (9 N M M N� N p 0) > a) m �' Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a) E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N C\l w In M '' '' N N (p 0 0 p a) ,> N C> m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m y0 E 0 0 w w a) U) °- a) °— p` m m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s= w s= m N w 0 m a� 0 0 00 0o m o > m r > O 2 a� > o a� a� m m 3 m C7 U) —— W w m > U> m U) W (n W H J J J J J J J J Z Z J J J J J J J w 0 ` O m 0 a ° Q J m W 0 N Q ° ° ° V 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 cc cc O O O N O O O O N O N N O O O V In 0 N N V N V 6% V 6% O O O O In w r r N N In cc N N N co M ('7 O O 6 6% (h V) ER ER ER N O O O 6% 6% N o y ` C m N N U 0 C a L > o d m E O d Y a) o N Z w' .� d E C C J (U m a C > m X d a) — a) w:= O 0) (0 r— V co O 0) C\l O 0) I� p 3 v ° o r o ° o w x o m ru ° 3 a > Y m = w Q Q r � (o (o (o (o ,m (o (o u) u) u) c c ' ° 0 a) Q Q x m a s m m Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q cu [� U) E E w °� ° °- a p -0 a W m c c c c c c c c Q c c c c c c c LL m m E m .? o> m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m d o o m ru ° o W >..> p` o? o > m c o o v ° J 0 (9 N M M N� N p 0) > a) m �' Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a) E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N C\l w In M '' '' N N (p 0 0 p a) ,> N C> m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m y0 E 0 0 w w a) U) °- a) °— p` m m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s= w s= m N w 0 m a� 0 0 00 0o m o > m r > O 2 a� > o a� a� m m 3 m C7 U) —— W w m > U> m U) W (n W H J J J J J J J J Z Z J J J J J J J w 0 ` O m 0 a ° Q J m W 0 N Q E - o Q 0 o F z m Z F 0 Q O T `o o T j E o o T - - - m co co co r r r a a a Q m U C, 0 0 O O O 0 0 O (O O (O O O O (O (O w y V LO L O Co O 0 N O O O O O m O O O O O O (O O m (O O O O O O O O I� O r Cl) a O( J "i N O ~ I- O Ln O In 0 (O I- O o 0 V V 0 IA r N 0 U) 000 r 0 M M 0 O N O M N O a (A M G M M V V ER fR ER Cl) R r ` O r W W W U U N r Z O O O 0 O O O O O (O O O O O (O k � m O O O O 0 0� 00 M O O O O O O r- N O C\l _ 000 N W O O N 0 V i+ i+ M N O V m r r N M O V3 V3 U) C 7 ER ER M (R M Cl It VEIL 7 (A M EA EA yj EA O ' L U � O U 0 0 00 O o 0 o 0 O + D o_ Do_ �Lo ID a7 0 N 0o OD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O 0 LO O O N 6% d) N L O (R �p N N O O O O O O 0 0 O o o O V CD O O N OO 0 o OO N LL C N 6% o L 0 0 0 0 0 CL 0 a L6 co M O 00 O O O 0 0 p o O O Ln O 0 0 0 O = O C N CN 00 LO O N L N ON N N (» 6% 69 i» � ° 72 U c 0 0 0 �j O O O LO 00 O O O O O (o O o 0 0 0 o M 0 p 4 Lo moo 00000(flo O w o U E N O 0 0 0 0 0 1- 0 O O U O M ER c O LO O N r 6% C i»(»i»� � 7 o 05 LL O O 00 p O O m D O O O 00 D O 0 °o_ 0 o0 N p U O O OO DO O 2 ° iL ~ .N O N N p 0 ry p In V M o � ry p� 0 O cs� C a 0 � 0_ d) N EA N EA V N 6% EA O N `, O X o0 p y m '� 10 w 3 0 W in Y N y o a� a (1) o a O O o Q X ° w _ s E d N N O U O' (n Y O N U N O S U C C 16 .° ° O O_ O .+ N E C .5 E .N E 0 � m m m U m a� v v0 aGi O C m m Co (n U) (n O (n j N w U N N LL x O 3 3 M. cr N > O W o t' N U U U U O M a u k j O N 0 0 N N N N ~ N N N U N O W U (4 N T (4 C C m w C U N 7 co co S co O co O O W co N r N O 'O d d d N d Q 0 E Q O O Q Q' Q . , LL LL LL Q' LL fn fn .� V LL Q Q Z Z ]� G += ' L O 4 E O (6 E Vl E a a L a a CL 05 1 0 0 U- I F «� E - o Q 0 o F z m Z F 0 Q O T `o o T j E o o T - - - m co co co r r r a a a Q m U C, RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: July 17, 2013 Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 14, 2013 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED RESOLUTION AMENDED 2013 -2014 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Amended 2013 -2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County on July 17, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended denial of this amended plan at their regular meeting on July 17, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this plan during their regular meeting on August 14, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports the priorities for capital expenditures contained in the Amended Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and has affirmed that the projects contained in the Amended Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) conforms to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the Amended 2013- 2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Frederick County, Virginia as an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. PDRes #18 -13 Passed this 14th day of August, 2013 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Robert W. Wells Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Christopher E. Collins A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes #18 -13 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Public Hearing — Temporary Family Health Care Structures Date: August 5, 2013 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Staff has prepared a revision to the Zoning Ordinance to include temporary family health care structures (MedCottages) as a permitted use in the following Zoning Districts: • RA (Rural Areas) • RP (Residential Performance) • R5 (Residential Recreational) • R4 (Residential Planned Community) The Code of Virginia requires localities to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts where single family detached dwelling units are permitted. Staff has added this use as a permitted use in the above districts and has drafted a number of supplementary use regulations that regulate the use. The supplemental regulations are consistent with the State Code. This item was discussed by the DRRC at their meeting on April 25, 2013. The DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendment being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion with minor changes to the definition of caregiver (to clarify that outside agencies can provide care for a person residing in a temporary family health care structure). The Planning Commission discussed this item at their meeting on May 15, 2013; the Commission was supportive of the amendment as presented. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their June 12, 2013 meeting; the Board had no changes and forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item on July 17, 2013; there were no citizen comments and the commission recommended approval of the amendment. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with bold italic for text added). This proposed amendment is being presented to the Board of Supervisors as a public hearing item. A decision by the Board of Supervisors on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics. 2. Code of Virginia pertaining to temporary family health care structures. 3. Photographs of structure. 4. Resolution. CEP /pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Attachment 1 ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101— General Provisions § 165 - 101.02 Definitions & word usage. CAREGIVER - An adult who provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person within the Commonwealth. For purposes of the placement of a temporary family health care structure, a caregiver shall be either related by blood, marriage, or adoption to or the legally appointed guardian of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom they are providing care for. MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED PERSON - A person who is a resident of Virginia and who requires assistance with two or more activities of daily living, as defined in § 63.2 -2200, as certified in a writing provided by a physician licensed by the Commonwealth. TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE STRUCTURE - A transportable residential structure, providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person, that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically impaired person, or, in the case of a married couple, two occupants, one of whom is a mentally or physically impaired person, and the other requires assistance with one or more activities of daily living as defined in § 63.2 -2200, as certified in writing by a physician licensed in the Commonwealth; (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, and (iv) complies with applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law (§ 36 -70 et seg.) and the Uniform Statewide Building Code (§ 36 -97 et seg.). Placing the temporary family health care structure on a permanent foundation shall not be required or permitted. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses § 165 - 204.27. Temporary family health care structures. Where allowed, a temporary family health care structure, shall meet the following requirements: A. A temporary family health care structure shall be permitted for use by a caregiver in providing care for a mentally or physically impaired person on property owned or occupied by the caregiver as his residence as a permitted accessory use. Outside agencies or persons not residing on the property may provide care for the mentally or physically impaired person residing in the structure. e No temporary family health care structure shall be installed without first obtaining a permit. The permit holder shall provide the County with evidence of compliance on an annual basis as long as the temporary family health care structure remains on the property; Attachment 1 C. Only one temporary family health care structure shall be placed on a lot or parcel of land. Such structures shall comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. D Any temporary family health care structure shall be connected to the water, sewer, and electric utilities serving the primary residence on the property and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Virginia Department of Health; E No signage advertising or otherwise promoting the existence of the temporary family health care structure shall be permitted either on the exterior of the structure or elsewhere on the property; F. Any temporary family health care structure installed pursuant to this section shall be removed within -60 days of the date on which the temporary family health care structure was last occupied by a mentally or physically impaired person receiving services or in need of the assistance provided by the structure. G The Zoning Administrator may revoke the permit granted pursuant to subsection A above if the permit holder violates any provision of this section or the Code of Virginia. Additionally, the local governing body may seek iniunctive relief or other appropriate actions or proceedings in the circuit court of that locality to ensure compliance with this section. The Zoning Administrator is vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the locality to ensure compliance with this section. ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS § 165 - 401.02 Permitted uses. Part 401— RA Rural Areas District Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses: DD. Temporary family health care structure. Part 402 — RP Residential Performance District § 165 - 402.02 Permitted uses. A. All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development plan unless otherwise waived under Article VIII of this chapter. B. Structures and land shall be used for one of the following uses: (15) Temporary family health care structure. *By adding temporary family health care structure as a permitted use in the RP District it is also automatically a permitted use in the R4 and R5 Districts Legislative Information System Pagel of 2 § 15.2- 2292.1. Zoning provisions for temporary family health care structures. A. Zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider temporary family health care structures (i) for use by a caregiver in providing care for a mentally or physically impaired person and (ii) on property owned or occupied by the caregiver as his residence as a permitted accessory use in any single-family residential zoning district on lots zoned for single-family detached dwellings. Such structures shall not require a special use permit or be subjected to any other local requirements beyond those imposed upon other authorized accessory structures, except as otherwise provided in this section. Such structures shall comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. Only one family health care structure shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of land. B. For purposes of this section: "Caregiver" means an adult who provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person within the Commonwealth. A caregiver shall be either related by blood, marriage, or adoption to or the legally appointed guardian of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom he is caring, "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of Virginia and who requires assistance with two or more activities of daily living, as defined in § 63.2-2200, as certified in a writing provided by a physician licensed by the Commonwealth. "Temporary family health care structure" means a transportable residential structure, providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person, that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically impaired person or, in the case of a married couple, two occupants, one of whom is a mentally or physically impaired person, and the other requires assistance with one or more activities of daily living as defined in § 63.2-2200, as certified in writing by a physician licensed in the Commonwealth; (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet; and (iv) complies with applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law (§ 36-70 et seq.) and the Uniform Statewide Building Code (§ 36-97 et seq.). Placing the temporary family health care structure on a permanent foundation shall not be required or permitted. C. Any person proposing to install a temporary family health care structure shall first obtain a permit from the local governing body, for which the locality may charge a fee of up to $100. The locality may not withhold such permit if the applicant provides sufficient proof of compliance with this section. The locality may require that the applicant provide evidence of compliance with this section on an annual basis as long as the temporary family health care structure remains on the property. Such evidence may involve the inspection by the locality of the temporary family health care structure at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver, not limited to any annual compliance confirmation. D. Any temporary family health care structure installed pursuant to this section may be required to connect to any water, sewer, and electric utilities that are serving the primary residence on the property and shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Virginia Department of Health. E. No signage advertising or otherwise promoting the existence of the structure shall be permitted either on the exterior of the temporary family health care structure or elsewhere on the property. F. Any temporary family health care structure installed pursuant to this section shall be removed within 60 days of the date on which the temporary family health care structure was last occupied by a mentally or physically impaired person receiving services or in need of the assistance provided for in this section. G. The local governing body, or the zoning administrator on its behalf, may revoke the permit granted pursuant to subsection C if the permit holder violates any provision of this section. Additionally, the local governing body may seek injunctive relief or other appropriate actions or proceedings in the circuit court http://legl.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+l 5.2-2292.1+501267 7/112013 Legislative Information System Page 2of3 of that locality h) ensure compliance with this section. The zoning administrator ie vested with all necessary authority on behalf of the governing body of the locality to ensure compliance with this section. (2010, c. 288; 2013, c. 178] Legislative Information System http://legl.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504. 15.2-2292.1f501267 7/]/20}3 FFA ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: July 17, 2013 Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 14, 2013 IJ APPROVED IJ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165 ZONING ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PART 101 GENERAL PROVISIONS § 165- 101.02 DEFINITIONS & WORD USAGE. ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES PART 204 — ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PART 401 — RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT § 165- 401.02 PERMITTED USES. PART 402 — RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT § 165- 402.02 PERMITTED USES. WHEREAS, an ordinance to amend Chapter 165 Zoning, to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted use and to add definitions that correspond to the use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on August 14, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance to be in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice; and PDRes. #19 -13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 Zoning, is amended to allow temporary family health care structures as a permitted use and to add definitions that correspond to the use. This amendment shall be in effect on the day of adoption. Passed this 14th day of August, 2013 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Gene E. Fisher Robert W. Wells Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. A COPY ATTEST John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #19 -13 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #01 -13 SHENANDOAH Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: August 5, 2013 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed Planning Commission: 07/17/13 Board of Supervisors: 08/14/13 PROPOSAL: To develop 926.27 acres of land zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District with a total of 2,130 (includes the 253 existing platted lots) residential dwelling units. The land area west of Lake Frederick will consist entirely of age restricted dwellings (total of 517 age restricted units) and will be served by private streets. The land area east of Lake Frederick will consist primarily of traditional residential units (76 age restricted units and 1,537 traditional). The housing located on the east side of Lake Frederick will include a mix of single family detached and attached and will be served by public roads. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Opequon LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the western side of Route 522 South (Front Royal Pike), south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) and east of Route 636 (Hudson Hollow Road). Existing primary access to this site is located on Route 522 South via Lake Frederick Drive. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/17/13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The Master Development Plan for Shenandoah depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that the original MDP for the Shenandoah Development included both residential and commercial components. The commercial component while shown on the MDP is held under separate ownership (Wheatlands LLC) and is not part of this MDP submission. The revisions to the MDP currently being considered do not impact the commercial portion of the Shenandoah Development. The applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors allow them to sever the commercial and residential landbays so they can proceed with an independent MDP. If the Board of Supervisors authorizes the severing of the commercial and residential landbays, the Shenandoah MDP will be in a form that is administratively approvable. All of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those issues brought forth by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately addressed by the applicant. It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments, staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application. MDP #01 -13, Shenandoah August 5, 2013 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. LOCATION: The subject properties are located on the western side of Route 522 South (Front Royal Pike), south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) and east of Route 636 (Hudson Hollow Road). Existing primary access to this site is located on Route 522 South via Lake Frederick Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER 87 -A -103, 87- A -103C, 87 -A -102 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE Zoned: R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District Use: Age Restricted Housing, Lake Frederick, & Undeveloped R5 Zoned Land ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) Clarke County West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural & Residential Use: Agricultural & Residential Use: Agricultural & Residential Use: Agricultural & Residential PROPOSAL To develop 926.27 acres of land zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District with a total of 2,130 (includes the 253 existing platted lots) residential dwelling units. The land area west of Lake Frederick will consist entirely of age restricted dwellings (total of 517 age restricted units) and will be served by private streets. The land area east of Lake Frederick will consist primarily of traditional residential units (76 age restricted units and 1,537 traditional). The housing located on the east side of Lake Frederick will include a mix of single family detached and attached and will be served by public roads. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation A VDOT review has been conducted for the Shenandoah Master Development Plan dated May 1, 2013 that was received in our office on May 7, 2013. Based on the review of the drawings, all of the previous VDOT comments have been addressed and the Plan is approved by our office. Please provide a signed set of drawings in electronic pdf format for our records. MDP #01 -13, Shenandoah August 5, 2013 Page 3 We look forward to the opportunity to review the project in further detail, including evaluating existing portions of Rachel Carson Drive for secondary street acceptance, during the site plan submission process. Frederick County Fire & Rescue: Plan approval recommended. Frederick County Fire Marshal No comment Frederick County Public Works All of our previous comments have been addressed. Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition permit shall be obtained prior to the removal of any existing structures. No additional comments at this time. Inspection will comment on building lots and utilities at the time of subdivision review. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Review R -1 approved Frederick County Parks and Recreation: Plan with revisions appears to meet County Ordinance. Virginia Department of Health Comment: Health Department has no objections so long as public sewer and water are utilized. Frederick County Public Schools: No additional comments at this time. Frederick County GIS Division Final road naming will be determined during subdivision review. The Frederick County Department of GIS has reviewed the requested road names for use in the subdivision and has made the following determinations: The following road names have been APPROVED and ADDED into the Frederick County Road Naming and Structure numbering system: Abercorn Way and Bayhill Drive Clarke County Planning Department: Staff has completed our courtesy review of the Shenandoah Amended Master Development Plan (dated December 14, 2012). Per our recent telephone conversation, you indicated that the Amended Master Development Plan was being submitted for review in Frederick County primarily to remove an age restriction requirement but also to make some design changes that would include a reduction in the residential density. You also indicated that no subdivision activity or changes in your development plan would take place on any properties in Clarke County. We have no comments specific to the Amended Master Development Plan. However, we do request the opportunity to review and comment on any future stormwater management plans that are submitted for this project in order to determine any impacts on Clarke County properties. Planning & Zoning: A) Master Development Plan Requirement MDP #01 -13, Shenandoah August 5, 2013 Page 4 A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Site History The properties comprising this project were rezoned from the A -2 (Agricultural) District to the R -5 (Residential Recreational Community) District in October of 1975. A Master Development Plan for a project titled "Wheatlands" containing a total of 1,463 dwelling units was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1991. A Master Development Plan for "Shenandoah" (revised Wheatlands) containing a total of 2,130 (2.3 units per acre) age restricted dwelling units (attached, detached and apartments on private streets), was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 25, 2000 (with conditions, Board of Supervisors deemed conditions satisfied on March 25, 2001) and the plan was administratively approved by staff on May 2, 2001. On December 5, 2007, staff approved an administrative revision to the Shenandoah Master Development Plan for minor modifications to the interior road network. C) Site Suitability & Project Scope Comprehensive Policy Plan: The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -11 Land Use Compatibility: The parcels comprising this MDP application are not located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) or the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); however the site has existing R5 Zoning and is also shown with a Planned Unit Development designation in the Comprehensive Plan (Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Plan). The Shenandoah Development is proposed to develop with a density of 2.3 units per acre, which is consistent with the maximum R5 density permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. The Shenandoah Development is served with public sewer by the Crooked Run Wastewater Reclamation Facility which was constructed by Oxbridge Development at Shenandoah to serve the Shenandoah Development and turned over to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Public water is also provided to the development by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Site Access and Transportation: The existing Shenandoah Development is accessed via a signalized (not yet turned on — flashing) entrance on Route 522 south. The existing Route 522 access also serves as the primary entrance to Lake Frederick which is owned by VDGIF. An additional full entrance for the development is MDP #01 -13, Shenandoah August 5, 2013 Page 5 shown on Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and an emergency access is shown on Hudson Hollow Road (Route 636). The development can be seen as two sections, one east and one west of Lake Frederick. The portion west of the lake is where the existing age restricted units are located and are completely served by private roads. The MDP shows all development west of Lake Frederick to remain age restricted and the private road network will be extended to serve those units. The portion of the development east of Lake Frederick will primarily consist of traditional housing that will be served by new public roads. The Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Plan (Appendix I), shows a new arterial road called the South Frederick Parkway which is planned to run through the northern portion of this property. Sheet 6 of the MDP shows how this future roadway could be accommodated on the property. Recreational Amenities: The existing age restricted portion of the development located on the western side of Lake Frederick contains a constructed community center with a pool and bathhouse. The existing community facilities will continue to serve the age restricted portion of the development. A new community center with a pool, bathhouse and tennis court will be constructed on the eastern side of Lake Frederick along with a tot lot at a separate location. In addition there will be a 10 foot paved bike path continued along Rachel Carson Drive, 4 foot lake access trails throughout the development and three boat launch locations (with approval by VDGIF). PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 7/17/13 MEETING Commission members questioned the possible impacts and significance of removing the age- restricted component and severing the commercial area from the residential area. It was pointed out that 1,500 traditional family houses could generate up to 300 school -age children, resulting in the need for an additional school. Commissioners recalled discussion at the time of the original MDP involving the commercial area and whether there would be a fire station and the possibility of land being donated to the county for an emergency response station. It was noted this is a small town area and there could be significant impacts on roads, commercial facilities, and emergency services, if the age - restricted requirement is removed and the commercial area is severed from the residential area. During the public comment portion of the meeting, Mr. Ray Smith, the owner of the commercial area, came forward to express his opposition to severing the commercial area from the original MDP. Mr. Smith said he was not aware until he received the adjoining property owners' letter from the County that the severing was being proposed. He was concerned about losing his entitlements and zoning and raised the following questions: could he still develop the shopping center in the way it was initially planned; could this residential development seek their commercial from another location; would there be new setback and buffer requirements for his property; will there be a reduction in the number of residential units, as this could adversely affect the success of the shopping center; and, would the utility agreements be affected because utility lines were supposed to be constructed to his property line. MDP #01 -13, Shenandoah August 5, 2013 Page 6 The staff assured the Commission and the developers that for the purpose of severing the MDP, the properties will be recognized as a single project and both parties will have the rights to proceed with their development schemes. Staff assured the Commission and the developers that staff will recognize the properties as being one; the severing will not affect Mr. Smith's zoning rights and he will continue to have all of his commercial rights. The staff noted the severing simply indicates the Lansdowne property can advance on its own independently, without having a signature from the other party. Likewise, Mr. Smith's property could advance on its own without having a signature from the Lansdowne party. Some members of the Commission did not favor the severing because one of the parties was opposed and was not aware of the other party's proposal to severe. It was noted that if the two parties are joined in one MDP, then both owners have to cooperate as far as access and utilities. A Commissioner suggested that for the purposes of recognizing these properties as a single project, documentation should be placed on the plats or the MDP. A member of the Commission said he would like to see a phasing plan for the residential development, so the County could plan to accommodate the additional school children and other impacts that may be generated by removing the age - restricted areas. A motion was made to table the severing request for 45 days to allow time for the two developers to come to an agreement on future utility connectivity, roads, access, and compatibility between the two severed MDPs and who is responsible for what activity. This motion was seconded and unanimously passed. ( *Please note that the MDP for Shenandoah could not be tabled due to the severing issue because the Planning Commission is not party to this approval, and therefore the application was moved forward for Board of Supervisor review). (Note: Commissioner Mohn abstained from voting; Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/17/13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The Master Development Plan for Shenandoah depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that the original MDP for the Shenandoah Development included both residential and commercial components. The commercial component while shown on the MDP is held under separate ownership (Wheatlands LLC) and is not part of this MDP submission. The revisions to the MDP currently being considered do not impact the commercial portion of the Shenandoah Development. The applicant has requested that the Board of Supervisors allow them to sever the commercial and residential landbays so they can proceed with an independent MDP. If the Board of Supervisors authorizes the severing of the commercial and residential landbays, the Shenandoah MDP will be in a form that is administratively approvable. All of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those issues brought forth by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately addressed by the applicant. MDP #01 -13, Shenandoah August 5, 2013 Page 7 It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments, staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O u7 O W) O u7 O 41 O 0) Q7 00 00 h f- CO m N N N N N N N Q Q Q Q Q Q a a - 8698000 - 8698500 - 8699000 - 8699500 - 8700000 - 8700500 - 8701000 - 8701500 - 8702000 - 8702500 U CD N I I r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Lo o LO o LO o LO O m 47 00 00 h f+ w m N N N N N N N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q w z w ❑ J 2 m a- 4 W U J LLI P- C7 J li Z Q 1 z w I _ a- � [n C7 D N Ln - I z 0 H \ a 1 �D H \ C7 z x a �w z w ❑ J 2 m Q W U J LLI F- 2 L.7 � Z W W m Of J L7 W Z � [n W LLJ Z LLB J W 2 LLJ ❑ LC] N O w= H LLj LLI Ln N W [n W [ J Q W [n N M I�-1 N Q W Ln J ❑ Z � J W n W Z_ Z Z a_ O �1 F is v J H r- -1 o pp O r D0 a M ❑ r i r-1 n N N N N S ri CD O iY1 N N N N N •--S -1 N H GA H Z n Q O Q O O Q Q Q N G W J a = a� Mn Q O m O C) � O 0 r � Q a 2 J ❑ LL LU N a = a m 0 O ry r, CO O co Ln J 0 ° N ° N O a Z N LU G U LU C y N GWA LU L Q T W W Lo U I- W VNV �.• � . �.•` mil -� P r � f , r ' r r - � � r 1 r ;� d IIN PLO cn • • • • • rej NSIX I - I 2REJ •• 0 r ,< mou W3 • oy -door& _ t a � I d I ;j : r � -•.e`er � �, j .� �. � l � �'' d � � �` =" - - �. ' - , -� � / , � ��1 , ; ,l:" i � u j l r y lit / r _ � r u 0 A-1 i s y pp 7 y, e o \ V J v ' �� . •r �d� � ti 111 � l _ � �`'" � ?'. � �! ,� � � s r � , r 1 _ r 11 f / r '� r i' ✓. . MY I f " I � f � r !! 8 TO L L 41" 1 4*u- a4 34 > pq 4 P4 i� I f f mQ try /�- mG�!lA:CJ 1� s O Applications Q Parcels Building Footprints 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) t EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) - R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R6 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) 7 �\ i 1 f I& n 277 4 v m� IA'LJ.7 - MDPO113 CLARKE COUNTY VIRGINIA 87 A 103 87 A 103 ti I. r COUNTY VIRGINIA Note: MDP # 01 - 13 Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development Shenandoah 107 N Kent St PINS: Suite 202 e 87 - A - 103, 87 - A - 103C, Winchester, VA 22601 87-A- 102 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: July 1, 2013 Staff: cperkins 0 900 1,800 3,600 Feet COUNTY of FREDERICK Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. July 2, 2013 Page 2 120 EXF.TCR I)RI VY, SUITE 200 PosT OFFICF. Box 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22694 TELEPHONE: (540) 665 -0050 FACS0TfLF; (540) 722 -4051 Roderick B. Williams, Esquire County Attorney 107 North Kent Street WIrichester, VA 2260 t Tr4omAS MoORE LAWSON • TI,AWS0W(fl_'LSPL,C.00N1 .Tune 24, 2013 Re: Shenandoah Development Our File No. 1211.001 VIA E -MAIL Dear Rod: This is to confirm our previous communications and correspondence concerning the above- referenced project. As you know, the property was approved as a residential recreational community district with the understanding that there would be several land bays and provisions for development and build -out by different builders. That layout included a commercial area which fronts on Route 522 and also has access off of the main public road coming into the Shenandoah development. Since the development was originally approved, the property has been sold several times, once to Dogwood Development Group, LLC, then to Oxbridge Development at Shenandoah, L.C., and now to MREC Shenandoah Valley, LLC ( "MREC "). Also, along the way, there have been ni.unerous outsales of lots to individual homeowners. As of the writing of this letter approximately 150 lots have been sold and homes have been constructed on the same. Currently my clients are in the process of closing on the purchase of the property which involves Negotiations with existing lenders. As you are aware, the existing purchase is for all of the property less and except the approved commercial property. The commercial property remains in the ownership of Wheatlands LLC. The amended Master Development Plan which has been circulated for agency comments and which we anticipate will be on the Planning Commission's agenda shortly is only for the property owned by MREC. As part of the Master Development Plan process we have been advised by Frederick County that it would be wise to submit a statement to the County advising of the various outsales of the property and that, going forward, it is anticipated that various lots and land bays will be sold to separate builders and/or developers. With the conveyance of said property it is intended that those builders and/or developers will be free to file whatever plans Fko , n 'RU1 Ai_ A noRess:8051'nmcv, Box 601F'Ro TRDY 2200,Tli FrHom :(540)635 -941^' FAC',I mn.v: (540) 6_lJ- 9421- F- 11 UL: .I�SLtiK.4LJ.IVSON 1vU$�Lk'KCON Roderick B. Williams, Esquire June 24, 2013 Page 2 they believe are necessary to allow for the development of their property to include, but not be limited to, amended Master Development Plans, Site Plans, etc. We have been advised that this letter, which constitutes a submission to Frederick County, is to ensure that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has knowledge of the most recent Master Development Plan amendment. This is also to put the Board on notice that consistent with the previously approved plan as well as what has in fact occurred at this community, there is and will continue to be in all likelihood more than one builder and/or developer building out this community. Further, with this submission we are giving notice that if and when a submission is filed there will be no need, requirement, or request from the County and /or any of its departments or agencies for signatures from any other property owners within the development, whether they be adjoining property owners or not, if the plan or permit at issue does not involve such other property owner's property and/or unless the plan or permit at issue affects any joint obligations. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Unless we hear from you to the contrary we will assume this is a complete recitation of the understandings and agreements between the property owners at the community known as Shenandoah in Frederick County, Virginia. Very truly yours, Thomas Moore Lawson Counsel for Lansdowne Development Group TML.jk MREC SHENANPO-O- kH VA, LLC �/ Date By:```'°` t b 0 ,M J Its: )?1)d l k llltt?,, Roderick B. Williams, Esquire June 24, 2013 Page 3 Y // � - Date LANSDOWNF , DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC SHENANDOAH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO f Date By: Its: �r� Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. April 5, 2013 Page 2 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FORM[ Department of Planning & Development Use Only— Application 1 3 Date Application Received: 4 �`� 3 PC Meeting Date BOS Meeting Date Fee Amount Paid $ ® Initials: Q Receipt # .5 �c 1. Project Title: Shenandoah 2. Applicant: Name Lansdowne Development Group, LLG Telephone (703) 995 - 1849 Address: 2553 Dulles View Drive, Suite 400, Herndon, VA 20171 3. Property Owner (if different than above): Name MREC Shenandoah VA, LLC Telephone: (703) 995 -1849 Address: c/o Lansdowne Development Group, LLC 2553 Dulles View Drive, Suite 400, Herndon, VA 20171 4. Design Company: Name: B owman Consulting Gro LTD. Telephone: ( 443 - Address: 101 South Street SE, Leesburg, VA 20175 5. Please list names of all owners, principals, and /or majority stockholders: MRECV Shenandoah, LLC; Shenandoah Station Partners, LLC 6. Magisterial District: Opequon H 7. Property Location: The property is located west off of R 522 just south of Route 277 and east of Route 6 36. (Give State Route # and name, distance and direction from intersection) h. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. c Applicant(s) Date: 2 Date: Owner(s): ..._�. �..._ .__......�, Date: Date: Original Amended ✓ , Previous MDP# 03 -07 9. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 87 A 103 ,87 A 103C,87 A 102 b) Total Acreage 641109 A C, Rev. MDP (9 A C , overall) C) Current Zoning: R5 d) Present Use Vacant e) Proposed Uses Residential 10. If residential uses are proposed, provide the following: a) Density 2.29 DU/acre (overall) b) Number of Units 1,900 units, Rev. MDP (2,13 units, overall) c) Housing Types Single Family Detached & Single Family Attached 11. Adjoining Property use and zoning: USE ZONING North Residential or Vaca RA East Residential or Vacant RA South Residential or Vacant RA West Agriculture or Vacant R A I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. c Applicant(s) Date: 2 Date: Owner(s): ..._�. �..._ .__......�, Date: Date: Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Website: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone (540) 665 -5651 Facsimile (540) 665 -6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) MREC Shenandoah VA, LLC c/o Lansdowne Development Group, LLC (Phone) ( 703) 995 -1849 (Address) 2553 Dulles View Drive, Suite 400, Herndon, VA 20171 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ( "Property ") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 130006454 on Page 0411 , and is described as Parcel: S-Alached Lot: Seep "ached Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. (Phone) (7 03) 443 -2400 (Address) 101 South Street SE, Leesburg, Virginia 20175 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: _ Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permit Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan _ Variance or Appeal My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have C hereto set m our) hand and seal this day of , 201, Signature(s) RtcH+rR -P p. LA/Jf /k� State of Virginia, City /County of LcAA &tA- , To -wit: I, � frr 1 ,�a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to t] `� : 3 '� strument ggsonally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jqR' lctppp� ¢r "> .this l — day of J ru , , 20 � 3 . . PUBLIC %0 REG � 291706 * Z Z' c.-- � " _ N 1V1y (a)mmission Expires: Notary Public EXPIRES sc ,., OM rrn r'sSf'oh�� no- 3131/2016 %,,7t&TH OT . x " 'fFF 11101• COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 Memorandum To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Date: July 31, 2013 RE: Santa Maria Estates The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested: Santa Maria Drive, State Route Number 1641 0.17 miles Santa Maria Drive, State Route Number 1641 0.12 miles Staff is available to answer any questions. MRC /dlw 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 14 day of August, 2013, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Robert W. Wells Gene E. Fisher A COPY ATTEST PDRes. 420 -13 John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator In the County of Frederick ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- By resolution of the governing body adopted August 14, 2013 The following VDOT Form AM -4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system ofstate highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision Santa Maria Estates Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Reason for Change: New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1 -229 Street Name and/or Route Number ♦ Santa Maria Drive, State Route Number 1641 Old Route Number: 0 -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - • From: 0.12 mile north of Route 667, Sir John's Road To: 0.17 mile north of Knock Lane, a distance of: 0.17 miles. Recordation Reference: N/A Right of Way width (feet) = 50' Street Name and/or Route Number ♦ Santa Maria Drive, State Route Number 1641 Old Route Number: 0 -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - • From: Route 667, Sir John's Road To: 0.12 mile north of Route 667, Sir John's Road, a distance of: 0.12 miles. Recordation Reference: N/A Right of Way width (feet) = 50' VDOT Form AM -4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: August 14, 2013 Page 1 of 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Memorandum To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors From: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Date: July 31, 2013 RE: Christo Rey Estates The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested: Christo Rey Drive, State Route Number 1640 0.48 miles Christo Rey Drive, State Route Number 1640 0.58 miles Staff is available to answer any questions. MRC /dlw 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, in regular meeting on the 14 day of August, 2013, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM -4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described in the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert A. Hess Christopher E. Collins Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Robert W. Wells Gene E. Fisher A COPY ATTEST PDRes. #21 -13 John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator In the County of Frederick ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- By resolution of the governing body adopted August 14, 2013 The following VDOT Form AM -4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system ofstate highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision Christo Rey Estates Type Change to the Secondary System of State Highways: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested; the right of way for which, including additional easements for cuts, fills and drainage, as required, is hereby guaranteed: Reason for Change: New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1 -229 Street Name and/or Route Number ♦ Christo Rey Drive, State Route Number 1640 Old Route Number: 0 -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - • From: 0.58 mile east of Route 667, Sir John's Road To: 0.48 mile east of Loretto Drive, a distance of: 0.48 miles. Recordation Reference: N/A Right of Way width (feet) = 50' Street Name and/or Route Number ♦ Christo Rey Drive, State Route Number 1640 Old Route Number: 0 -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - • From: Route 667, Sir John's Road To: 0.58 mile east of Route 667. Sir John's Road. a distance of: 0.58 miles. Recordation Reference: N/A Right of Way width (feet) = 50' VDOT Form AM -4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: August 14, 2013 Page 1 of 1