The URL can be used to link to this page

February 13 2019 Board_Agenda_PacketAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2019 5:00 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION 5:30 P.M. – BUDGET WORK SESSION 7:00 P.M. - REGULAR MEETING BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 5:00 P.M. – Closed Session The Board of Supervisors will convene in closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 A (3) for discussion or consideration of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5:30 P.M. – Budget Work Session Call to Order (See Budget Work Session Agenda) Adjourn ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7:00 P.M. - Regular Meeting Call to Order Invocation Pledge of Allegiance Adoption of Agenda CitizenComments – Agenda Items that are not the subject of a Public Hearing Consent AgendaAttachment 1.Minutes a.Regular Meeting of January 23, 2019 ------------------------------------------------ A b.Budget Work Session of January 23, 2019 ----------------------------------------- B MEETING AGENDA PAGE 2 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, February 13, 2019 Consent Agenda, continued 2.Committee Reports Parks and Recreation Commission Report ------------------------------------------ C a. Transportation Committee Report of 1/28/19--------------------------------------- D b. Public Works Committee Reportof 1/29/19 ----------------------------------------- E c. esolution adopting the 2018 Northern Shenandoah Valley Region ------------------ F 3.R Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update *Note: The 2018 Update is available on the Frederick County, Virginia, website as a companion document to the February 13, 2019, Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Agenda at: http://www.fcva.us/bos 4.Resolution Requesting Spanish Oak Road, Sadi Court, and Sarvis Court ---------- G tothe Secondary Systemof State Highways 5.Resolution and agreement enabling the Chief Building Official to enter into ------- H appropriate agreements withneighboring localities regarding permits on (Recommended by the Public Works Committee) border properties. Board of Supervisors Comments County Officials 1.Committee Appointments-------------------------------------------------------------------------- I a.Extension Leadership Council Back Creek District -- Unexpired 4-year term ending 1/14/20 b.ShawneelandSanitary District Advisory Committee 2-year term of Michelle Landon ended 11/9/18 (Eligible for reappointment) 2-year term of Jeff Stevens ended 11/9/18 (Eligible for reappointment) c.Board of Equalization 3-year term ended12/31/18 (Seeking applications) MEETING AGENDA PAGE 3 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, February 13, 2019__________________________________________________________ Committee Business Transportation Committee Renaissance Drive, Phase II The 30% design and update for the costestimate for the completion of the project has been received. It was significantly higher than the originaloperating cost estimate. The Committee recommends proceeding with the at grade crossingas an alternative option. Public Hearings (Non Planning Issues) - None Planning Commission Business Public Hearings 1.Request by Mountain Falls Park Residents for Designation of ---------------------- J Sanitary District The Board of Supervisors, having Received a Petition Requesting the Creation of a Sanitary District Encompassing the Subdivision Known as Mountain Falls Park, also Known as Wilde Acres, will Conduct a Public Hearing on the Question of the Proposed Sanitary District, which Hearing shall Embrace a Finding of Fact of Whether Creation of the Proposed District or Enlargement of the Existing District is Necessary, Practical, Fiscally Responsible, and Supported by at Least 50 Percent of Persons who Own Real Property in the Proposed District. 2.Rezoning #04-18 - Tasker Road and Warrior Drive Commercial Properties ---- K Submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc.,to Rezone 20.24+/- Acres from the B2 (General Business) District with Proffers to the B2 (General Business) District with Revised Proffers and 0.62+/- Acres of Land Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers to the RP (Residential Performance) District with Revised Proffers. The Properties are Located in the Northwest and Southwest Corners of the Intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive and are Identified by Property Identification Numbers 75-A-104 And 75-A-104E in the OpequonMagisterial District. MEETING AGENDA PAGE 4 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Wednesday, February 13, 2019__________________________________________________________ Other Planning Business 1.Discussion:2019-2024 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) ---------------------------L Staff is seeking a decision from the Board of Supervisors as to whether the 2018-2023 CIP is ready to be scheduled for public hearing. Board Liaison Reports Citizen Comments Board of Supervisors Comments Adjourn MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019 7:00P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman; Gary A. Lofton, Vice Chairman; Blaine P. Dunn; J. Douglas McCarthy; Judith McCann-Slaughter; Shannon G. TroutandRobert W. Wells were present. Staff present: Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Karen Vacchio, Public Information Officer; Mike Ruddy, Director of Planning; Candice Perkins, Assistant Director of Planning; Mark Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John Bishop, Assistant Director of Planning-Transportation; andAnn W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Supervisor Wells deliveredthe invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Lofton led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA -APPROVED Upon motion of Supervisor Slaughter, seconded bySupervisor Wells,theagendawas adopted on a voice vote. CITIZENS COMMENTS-NONE ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA –APPROVED Upon motion of Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Wells, theconsent agenda was adopted on a voice vote. -Minutes: Regular Meeting of January 9, 2019- CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL -Minutes: Budget Work Session of January 16, 2019- CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL -Finance Committee Report of January 16, 2019- CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL,Appendix 1 -Human Resources Committee Report of January 11, 2019- CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL, Appendix 2 -Parks and Recreation Commission Report of January 8, 2019- CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL,Appendix 3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes *January 23,2019 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS-None COUNTY OFFICIALS: COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS No appointments were offered by the Board. COMMITTEE BUSINESS: FINANCE COMMITTEE Supervisor Slaughter moved for approval of the following: The Winchester Regional Airport Director’s request for an Airport fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $10,000 to hold the “Wings ‘N Wheels” community event and the Sheriff’s request for a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $2,425 representing court ordered restitution received. Supervisor McCarthyseconded the motion which carried as follows on a roll call vote: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye + + + + + + + + + + + + + + PUBLIC HEARINGS(Non-Planning Items)-None PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONING #03-18 FOR CARPERS VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK –POSTPONED FOR 90 DAYS Submitted by Pennoni Associates, Inc.,to Rezone 122.18+/-Acres from the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with Proffers.The Properties are Located Approximately One Mile East of I-81on the South Side ofMillwood Pike (Route 50), East of Prince Frederick Drive (Route 781) and Coverstone Drive and are Identified by Property Identification Numbers 64-A-86 and 64-A-87 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins provided background information saying the application is to rezone a total of 122.18+/-acres from the R4 (Residential PlannedCommunity) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. She said the subject property is part ofthe original Carpers Valley/Governors Hill Rezoning which was approved in 2005 (revised in 2009,2013 and 2014)and that Rezoning #11-05 provided for 143 acres of commercial uses and 550 residential unitson six parcels of land (Land Bay 1 –Residential, Land Bay 2 –Commercial).Ms. Perkins said the current Rezoning #03- 18 seeks to sever two parcels (64-A-86 and 64-A-87) from the original approvedproffered rezoning and rezone them to the M1 District with a separate set of proffers. She said the approved rezoning 2 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes *January 23,2019 provided for the completion of Coverstone Drive from Prince Frederick Drive to its intersection with Millwood Pike (Route 50), while this rezoning removes the commitment for Coverstone Drive’s completion with Land Bay 2 (commercial) and places this commitment solely on Land Bay 1 (residential). Ms. Perkins continued saying the primarychanges proposed with this rezoning include modifications to the overall transportation networkapproved with the Governors Hill Rezoning, adding that the site is located within the limits of the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan of the 2035Comprehensive Plan and depicts the subject properties with a commercial land use designation. She concluded saying thiscommercial land use designation is reflective of the commercial component of the approved mixed-useproject approved for this siteand that the requested M1 (Light Industrial) District is inconsistent with theComprehensive Plan. Mr. Bishop provided information on the transportation aspect of the rezoning request. He said the approved rezoning provided for the completion ofCoverstone Drive from Prince Frederick Drive to its intersection with Millwood Pike (Route 50). He said the new rezoning removes the commitment for Coverstone Drive’s completion with Land Bay 2 (commercial)and places this commitment solely on Land Bay 1 (residential).He continued saying the planned road network included in the Area Plan identifies a major collector road system which provides for aneast-west linkage (Coverstone Drive) which connects to Route 50 East at Inverlee Way.He said this connection offers an alternative to and relieves future congestion on Route 50 between Prince Frederick Drive and I-81.He said along with other improvements in the vicinity of the site (including future Route 522 relocated), thisimportant network connection will allow significant traffic flow from the residential area and the approved development to Route 522 south and Winchester without traveling throughthe Exit 313 interchange Mr. Bishop explained the implementation of the Comprehensive Planned road network saying the shift of the Coverstone implementation and cash proffers without evidence of coordination with neighboring propertiesis problematic. He noted increased truck traffic, the need for analysis of right of way needs for offsite improvements, the inadequacy of turn lane improvements to Route 522, and inconsistency in the various traffic impact analyses. Ms. Perkins summarized saying this proposed rezoning does not provide any coordination withLand Bay 1 or the remainder of Land Bay 2 not owned by the applicant. Shenoted that the original rezoning utilized the commercial tax revenue generated to offset the impacts of the 550 residential units within the development,but the Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed industrial square footage proposed with thisrezoning will adequately offset the impacts the residential units will place on the County. She also noted this new rezoning would result in elimination of the design modification package as well as a coordinated and unified development of the entire project. 3 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes *January 23,2019 The Board and Staff discussed buffers on the subject property and the right-of-way improvement analysis. Alex Westra, representing the Applicant, Hines Global Investments, spoke in favor of the request and highlighted the company’s resumé.He said the company will develop the project on speculation and cited possible tax revenues from the project. He noted the numerous land parcels and owners involved in the original rezoning saying a history of defaults has resulted the current situation where he cannot speak or act for the adjoining land owners. He asked the Board to assess whether the rezoning will be good for the County. Ty Lawson, speaking on behalf of the Applicant, noted that his client is not a property owner yet, but is a contracted buyer. He said it does appear the M1 designation is appropriate for the property. The Board and Mr. Lawson discussed the Applicant’s willingness to plant a buffer along U.S. Route 50 and construction of instead of bonding of a portion of Coverstone Drive. Supervisor McCarthy noted an amended proffer must come from the landowner rather than a contracted buyer. Mr. Lawson said his client is a contracted buyer with the sale contingent on the rezoning. County Attorney Williams said that the nine separate property owners will need to sign off on the rezoning and proffer amendment request prior to the Board considering the matter. Chairman DeHaven opened the public hearing. Benjamin Leigh, representing Governor’s Hill LLC, spoke asking the Board to deny the rezoning request. He said his client is open to revisiting the overall development plan with other landowners in a comprehensive manner noting that the original proffer specified the properties be “one single unified development.” He cautioned against piecemeal rezoning. Chairman DeHaven closed the public hearing. Supervisor Trout moved that consideration of the request be postponed for 90 days. Supervisor Wells seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Lofton said he was not in favor of postponing the matter. The motion carried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonNoRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.No JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye 4 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes *January 23,2019 OTHER PLANNING BUSINESS REQUEST BY WESLEY HOUSING –RESOLUTION FOR A LOCAL HOUSING REVITALIZATION AREA (PIN#: 54-A-128)–DELAYED UNTIL NEXT REGULAR MEETING Mr. Ruddy said Mr. John Foote, onbehalf of Wesley Housing and St. Paul’s on the Hill, has provided anupdated proposed resolution for the Board’s consideration regarding the request for support for the Low Income Housing Tax Credits for the project. He said Mr. Foote is providing additional information on the Low Income Housing Tax Credits and the St. Paul’s on the Hill project based on questions and comments from the Board of Supervisors, in particular the reference to designating the property as being in a dilapidated state. Supervisor Dunn moved that the matter be postponed until the next regular meeting as requested by officials at St. Paul’s onthe Hill. He noted concerns in the law regarding the project proceeding with tax credits and thinks the General Assembly should review the proceduresfor obtaining tax credits. Vice Chairman Lofton seconded the motion. Supervisor McCarthy noted that the General Assembly will not be meetingto consider changes before the next Board meeting and therefore a delay will not change the issues. Vice Chairman Lofton said he voted against the project, and he cannot support a resolution designating anarea in need of revitalization when it is nottrue. The motion to delay consideration of the request by Wesley Housing carried on a roll call vote as follows: Blaine P. DunnAyeShannon G. TroutAye Gary A. LoftonAyeRobert W. WellsAye J. Douglas McCarthyAyeCharles S. DeHaven, Jr.Aye JudithMcCann-SlaughterAye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS-None CITIZEN COMMENTS–None BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Dunn noted the ribbon cutting event earlier in the day at the newly refurbished Frederick Heights Park. He thanked Parks and RecreationStaff, the citizens, the Board members, and the Chamber of Commerce for participation in the Park’s renewal. ADJOURN On motion of Vice Chairman Lofton, seconded by Supervisor Trout,the meeting was adjourned at 8:18p.m. 5 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Minutes *January 23,2019 MINUTES Frederick County Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session Wednesday,January 23, 2019 5:30p.m. First Floor Conference Room, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors:Chairman Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; ViceChairman Gary A. Lofton; Blaine P. Dunn;Judith McCann-Slaughter;J. Douglas McCarthy;Shannon G. Trout; and Robert W. Wellswere present. Staff present: Kris C. Tierney, County Administrator; C.William Orndoff, Jr., Treasurer; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Cheryl B. Shiffler, Finance Director; Jennifer Place, Budget Analyst; Sharon Kibler, Assistant Finance Director;Michael Marciano, Human Resources Director; Scott Varner, IT Director; Mike Ruddy, Planning Department Director; Karen Vacchio, Public Information Officer; Lenny Millholland, Sheriff; Denny Linaburg, Fire & Rescue Chief; Jason Robertson, Director of Parks & Recreation; Seth Thatcher, Assessor; and Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Boardof Supervisors. Finance Committee Memberspresent: Jeffrey Boppe CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 5:30p.m. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S BUDGET UPDATE Mr. Tierney reviewed the decision at the previous meeting to advertise the reassessment at the current tax rate and provided a brief listing of funding priorities for the Board’s consideration. He highlighted various options using the current real estate tax rate of $0.61 per$100 of assessed value versus the revenue neutral tax rate of $0.58 per $100 of assessed value. He noted that if the reassessment is not used, the 55 new requested positions will not be funded. He also discussed the use of contingency funds to purchase replacement vehicles for those found eligible via the adopted Vehicle Replacement Matrix. He noted the potential additional revenue after the first tax billing if the reassessment is used, the possible use of unreserved fund balance, and the possible use of the Debt Reduction/Capital Fund. He asked the Board for their input on future discussion items. Mr. Tierney and the Board discussed the six Fire and Rescue positions funded in the current budget that have not been filled. Supervisor Trout requested clarification on the IT Switch request. Mr. Varner explained the necessary hardware upgrade for the County-wide network adding that this is the second year of a three-year upgrade. FIRE AND RESCUE BUDGET OVERVIEW Chief Linaburg outlined the dependence on volunteers, the decline in volunteers, increased call volume, andthe need for increasedstaffing and infrastructure upgrades.He noted the recently completed Fire and Rescue Study calls for more staff and highlighted some of the new positions being requested including: Assistant Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Marshal, additional shift supervisors, Frederick County Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session Minutes *January 23,2019 1 EMS Captain, and additional firefighters. He noted a currently underway radio study. The Board and Chief Linaburg discussed the new Assistant Chief position. Supervisor Dunn noted the need to review radio needs for the fire departments. Mr. Tierney said the radio need has been a long-standing issue with various local safety departments not being able to communicate. He said a comprehensive communication study is on-going. He said that it would be preferable to wait for the study’s completion, probably in February, before allocating funds for radios. Chief Linaburg agreed with Mr. Tierney that waiting for the study’s results is preferred. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT BUDGET OVERVIEW Sheriff Millholland reviewed his budget requests asnine School Resource Officers(allowing one in each school), nine patrol units, three civil deputies, and two investigators. He discussed the vehicles needing replacement as specified on the Vehicle Replacement Matrix, and the current availability to replace those from existing vehicle dealer stock. He highlighted increased call volume noting it is up 5.5% over last year. The Sheriff and the Board discussed the need for a School Resource Officer in each school. SupervisorWells noted his preference for School Resource Officers rather than unarmed School Safety Officers in each school in today’s society. Vice Chairman Lofton said the schools could contract with private security firms rather than using County deputies. Supervisor Trout said the School Resource Officers do much in the way of keeping students in check in addition to keeping students safe. The Sheriff highlighted the training, outfitting, and duty differences between School Resource Officers and school sanctioned School Safety Officers. Vice Chairman Lofton said that for protection, contracted officers would suffice. CONTINGENCY FUNDS APPROVED FOR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT The Sheriff and the Board discussed the vehicles needing replacement. The Board agreed by consensus that contingency funds be used to purchase replacements for the vehicles identified on the Vehicle Replacement Matrix. At the Sheriff’s request, the Board agreed to consider replacing an additional three Crown Victorias that are identified on the Matrix as “Qualifies for Replacement.” DIRECTIVES FOR MORE INFORMATION Supervisor Trout asked how much from fund balance would be needed to fund the positions requested by the Sheriff and Fire Chief.Mr. Tierney noted that typically fund balance is used for one-time capital expenses rather than ongoing expenses. Supervisor Slaughter asked for a comparison of fund balance to the current capital request. Supervisor Dunn noted his concern about using fund balance, or rainy-day funds, for operations. Supervisor Trout noted the frequent use of a band-aid approach. She said with the continuing growth in the County, the only real option is to raise taxes in order to meet the citizens’ needs. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session Minutes *January 23,2019 2 Supervisor Dunn said he is not in favor of a tax increase but would prefer proffer revisionsor impact fees. Vice Chairman Lofton said that Loudoun County continues to grow even with taxes double that of Frederick County. Supervisor McCarthy said raising taxes is not a deterrent and that new residents still move in, but long-term residents are moving out to areas with a lower cost of living. Supervisor Dunn noted the ongoing attempt to increase the meals tax. ADJOURN There being no further business, the work sessionwas adjourned at 6:51p.m. Frederick County Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session Minutes *January 23,2019 3 REPORT to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Wednesday February 13, 2019 7:00 p.m. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA To: Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator for Human Services From: Jason L. Robertson, Director, Parks & Recreation Dept. Date: February 4, 2019 Subject: Parks and Recreation Commission Action The Parks and Recreation Commission met on January 30, 2019. Members present were: Randy Carter, Christopher Fordney, Gary Longerbeam, Amy Strosnider,Guss Morrison, Ronald Madagan, and Robert Wells (Board of Supervisors Non-Voting Liaison). Members absent: Natalie Gerometta ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: None ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY 1.The Commission approved the attached (Attachment 1) By-Laws. 2.The Commission recommends retaining the property of the Old Fred Middle School for use as a recreation complex. Please find attached the presentation staff shared with the Commission. (Attachment 2) 3.The Youth Sports Partner Policy (500.02) has been adopted as att 3). 4.Parks and Recreation Committee Appointments were assigned, and 2019 Meeting locations were presented. Cc: Charles R. Sandy, Chairman Robert Wells, Board of Supervisors Non-Voting Liaison Attachment 1 ARTICLE 1 1 ARTICLE 4 2 quorum. Section 8. Members may participate in public meetings via electronic communication means pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3708.2. The following constitutes the policy of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding electronic attendance at meetings, and such policy shall apply to all members without regard to identity, and without regard to the matters that will be considered or voted on at the meeting(s) in question. a.A member may request to attend a public meeting via electronic means due to a personal matter, emergency, disability, or other medical condition that prevents him or her from physically attending the meeting. Request for electronic attendance must be made to the Chairperson or Director on or before the day of the meeting for which electronic participation is requested. b.Electronic attendance due to a personal matter that prevents attendance is limited to two (2) meetingsper calendar year. Not such limit applies to attendance due to a medical condition or disability. c.A quorum must be physicallyassembled at the primary locationin order for the meeting to be held. d.If the request for electronic attendance is approved, arrangements will be made for all person at the primary location to hear the voice of the remote participant. e.The physical location of any member participating by electronic means shall be recorded in the minutes. The minutes of the meeting(s) in question shall further reflect that the 3 member participated through electronic means, and the reason for such participation. In the case of a disability or other medical condition, the minutes shall reflect that the member has a temporary or permanent disability or medical condition that prevented them from physically attending the meeting, though the specific medical condition or disability need to be identified. When electronic attendance is due to a personal matter o emergency, the nature of the personal matteror emergency must be identified and recorded in the minutes. f.Individual member participation from a remote location shall be approved unless such participation would violate this policy or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. g.If a member’sparticipation from a remote location is challenged, then the Commission shall vote whether to allow such participation. If the Commissionvotes to disapprove the members participation because participation would violate this policy, such disapproval shall be recorded in the minutes with specificity. f. 4 purpose for which the Commission was established. 5 ARTICLE 7 6 7 Attachment 3 YOUTH SPORTS PARTNERS 500.02 PURPOSE: To promote and provide assistance to recreational youth sport programsinFrederick County for established groups. GOAL: Toprovideand expand recreational sport opportunities for Frederick County youth by aligning with established recreation groups. POLICY: Tier 1: Youth Sports Partners (YSP) must provide an all-inclusive recreational youth sports activity that is not currently being provided by Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department (FCPRD) to a minimum of at least two hundredFrederick County youth. Youth Sports Partners shall not restrict participation on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, or sex. YSPgroups shall meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies to FCPRD.Youth Sports Partners shall abide by all Departmental rules, regulations, and policies wherever applicable. Youth Sports Partners meeting the terms of this policy and approved by the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission will be allocated space for their activities by FCPRD. Space allocations will be based on the number of children, needs of program, prior usage,prior season’s performance,and community demand for facility. Space allocations will be detailed in an annualagreement. The YSP will pay for field space based off a facility fee per participant. The facility fee per participant will be provided annually byFCPRD. Each Youth Sport Partner agreement must be approved by the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Commission. FCPRD shall provide the following services where possible under the Youth Sports Partner agreement: a.Publicity for registrations and league contact information b.Request Frederick County Public Schoolfacilitieson behalf of the Youth Sports Partners The Parks and Recreation Commission reserves the right to terminate the YSP agreement at any- time for poor performance. If the agreement is terminated, the YSP will be refunded based on any unused portion of the allocation. Youth Sports Partners will be responsible for: a.Meeting with FCPRD representatives on an annual basis b.Proof of non-profit status by providing a copy of the organizations501-C3 statement c.Provide the County with a certificate of insurance and an endorsement demonstrating coverage of $1 million for bodily injury per occurrence with a $2 million annual aggregate and $200,000 in property damage with a $500,000 annual aggregate naming Frederick County, VA and Frederick County Public Schools additionally insured d.Provide the department withaccurate records of board members and officers; including their name, address, and phone number and expiration date of their term e.Conducting criminal background checks according to the FCPRD Criminal Background Check Policy (# 500.03) for all coaches and volunteers working directly with the participants and ensuring all coaches are eligible f.Provide the number of participants, number of Frederick County participants, and cost of registration fees g.Designate one individual to interact with FCPRD for scheduling h.Provide all practice and game schedules to FCPRD two weeks before they are scheduled to begin. i.Provide and meet training standards for all head coaches and provide FCPRD a copy of the training program j.Report by phone or in person injuries, accidents, facility damage, dangerous or unsafe conditions, or unusual or suspicious situations to FCPRD as soon as possible, but no more than 24 hours or the next business day after the occurrence or discovery. Written reports on accidents or damage must becompleted accurately and sent to FCPRD within 24hours or the next business day. k.Accept all facilities as is and leave in a similar stateof cleanliness as upon arrival. l.Abide by all FCPRD Park Rules m.Abide by FCPRD Field Cancellation Policy (500.1) n.Submita signed agreementand pay the established fees before utilizing space. Fees for Youth Sports Providers will be determined by the following formula: a.FCPRD Facility Fee* x Total Number of enrollments x percentage of leaguein Frederick County facilities.Based on the prior year’s schedules. b.Spring and Fall seasons will be treated as separate seasons *The FCPRD Facility Fee is determined by taking all costs associated with providing recreational programs to the communityand divided by the total number of participants January 2019 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Monday, January 28, 2019 8:30 a.m. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ATTENDEES: Committee Members Present: Gary Lofton, Chairman (Voting), Judith McCann- Slaughter (Voting), Gary Oates (Voting), James Racey (Voting), Barry Schnoor (Voting) and Lewis Boyer (Liaison Stephens City). Committee Members Absent: Mark Davis (Liaison Middletown). Staff Present: Assistant Director-Transportation John Bishop, and Kathy Smith, Secretary. ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 1-Renaissance Drive, Phase II (see attached): The 30% design and update for the cost estimate for the completion of the project has been received. It was significantly higher than the original operating cost estimate. This was due to the fact of the increase in the cost of construction and materials. In response to this, Staff requested estimates for the additional project alternative options to include a two (2) lane bridge and an at grade crossing for the relocation of the Springdale Road Crossing. Summary of alternatives and funding below: The current cost estimates are attached and are as follows: 1.4-lane Bridge over CSX transitioning to 2-lane road section (current scope) - $9,738,224.00 2.2-lane bridge over CSX and 2-lane road section - $7,673,038.00 3.2-lane relocated at grade crossing and 2-lane road section - $3,081,692 Available funding is as follows: 1.Revenue sharing funds from VDOT - $1,638,764.00 2.Local Funds: a.$633,644.00 (Artillery Rezoning Proffer) b.$452,791.46 (Blackburn Rezoning Proffer) c.$1,080,000.00 (Carbaugh Rezoning Proffer) 3.Transportation Partnership Opportunity Fund (TPOF) - $1,995,682.00 4.Total Original Available Funding: $5,800,881.46 5.Expenditures to date less reimbursement/expected reimbursement: 6.Total Remaining Funding: $5,680,461.81 Alternatives to address the funding shortfall. 1.Seek additional private funding a.Staff met with the entities that have provided the private funding to date and it was indicated that they were not interested in additional fundin of a bridge at this time and would prefer to see the County move an at grade crossing. 2.Seek additional revenue sharing funds a.The next revenue sharing application window is in the winter of for successful applications would not be available until the sum which creates a timeline impact on the project. In addition, po funding has not been identified. 3.Seek additional TPOF funds a.Guidance from TPOF staff in Richmond indicates that while a succ application for additional TPOF is possible, it would likely req local investment which has not been identified at this time. In addition, the application and approval process would likely take approximately more. Based upon those additional alternative estimates and available Staff has recommended to proceed with the at grade crossing as an alternative option. Also, VDOT has recommended that the County issue a letter to request release of the Transpo Partnership Opportunity Funds (TPOF), for this option if recommended. The Committee discussed the options. Judith McCann-Slaughter commented that she is still not in agreement of the project without a backstop in place. Upon a motion by, Mr. James Racey seconded by Mr. Barry Schnoor the Committee recommended to forward the option of the at grade crossing to the Board for recommendation of approval. Supervisor McCann-Slaughter voted against the motion. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY: 2-SmartScale Scoring Update (see attached): T he SmartScale rankings of Round 3 was presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on Janu Donohue, Deputy Secretary of Transportation. The only area project to get funding was the I- 81 Exit 317 accel/decel Lane Extension. Staff briefly discussed the Staunton District procedures for the SmartScale applications scoring and ranking procedures. A key to scoring allocation is that District funds are first which makes the County less of a competitor for the State funding. Staff will discuss this more in detail to the Committee in future along with VDOT staff before the Round 4 ranking. 3-County Projects Updates: Tevis Street Extension/Airport Road/I-81 Bridge: The project is currently being advertised for the proposed bid to be submitted by Wednesday, February 27, 2019. A pre-bid meeting with potential contractors was held on January 22, 2019. The project is expected to be completed in the Summer of 2021. Renaissance Drive: Please see item 1 u Northern Y: Currently, the 30% design is underway and expected by mid-February. Coverstone Drive: The funds have been deallocated. Jubal Early Drive Extension and Interchange with Route 37: Staff had a meeting in December and is waiting to hear back. Currently, no other activity at this time. 4-Upcoming Agenda Items: SmartScale and Revenue Sharing next round discussion TBD: Oakdale Crossing Traffic Calming Study. 5-Other: Staff received an informal request for general VDOT projects in the County area to be updated and posted on Pennoni Associates Inc. FREDC18001 Job No: 11/6/2018 Date Consulting Engineers MAG Project: Renaissance Drive Extension - 4 Lane BridgeDes By: BTN Subject: 30% Submittal EstimateChk By: ITEM UNITQUANTITYPRICETOTAL MOBILIZATION 1 $100,000.00$100,000 LS DEMOLITION REMOVAL OF SIDEWALKSY 108 $7.50$810 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT REMOVALSY 1,565 $24.00$37,560 REMOVAL OF EXISTING CURBLF 666 $10.00$6,660 REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORM PIPE 317 $10.00$3,170 LF REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORM STRUCTURESEA 4 $1,000.00$4,000 EARTHWORKS CLEARING AND GRUBBINGAC 7.7 $5,000.00$38,650 REGULAR EXCAVATION - CUT TO FILLCY 10,715 $7.00$75,005 STRUCTURAL FILL IMPORTCY 6,740 $32.00$215,680 REGULAR FILL IMPORTCY 55,790 $22.00$1,227,380 GRADINGSY 26,475 $0.50$13,238 SEEDINGLB 1,375 $10.50$14,438 PAVEMENT STD. COMB. CURB & GUTTER CG-6LF 2,040 $18.00$36,720 STD CG-12, (3)TYPE B & (1)TYPE ASY 36 $45.00$1,620 CG-12 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACESY 7 $270.00$1,890 HYDRAULIC CEMENT CONC. 4" SIDEWALK SY 545 $40.00$21,800 7' GRAVEL SHOULDER - NO.21B TON 421 $18.00$7,578 1.5" SURFACE COURSE - S-9.5ATON 798 $90.00$71,820 2.5" INTERMEDIATE COURSE - IM-19ATON 1,283 $105.00$134,715 6" BASE COURSE - BM-25.0TON 3,020 $75.00$226,500 10" AGGREGATE BASE - NO.21B TON 3,841 $18.00$69,138 TACK COATGAL 1,020 $3.50$3,570 GUARDRAIL / FENCING STD GR-2LF 876 $25.00$21,900 RADIAL GR-2LF 717 $25.00$17,925 DRAINAGE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESCY 5,915 $15.00$88,725 DITCHESCY 466 $15.00$6,990 VDOT STD. UD-4LF 2,588 $15.00$38,820 VDOT STD. CD-1LF 74 $12.50$925 VDOT STD. CD-2LF 250 $12.50$3,125 VDOT STD. EW-12EA 6 $700.00$4,200 VDOT STD. DI-3B, L=6"EA 4 $3,400.00$13,600 VDOT STD. DI-3C, L=6'EA 4 $3,800.00$15,200 STORM SEWER, CONC. PIPE, 15"LF 275 $46.00$12,650 STORM SEWER, CONC. PIPE, 24"LF 155 $65.00$10,075 VDOT STD ES-1 - 15"EA 1 $600.00$600 VDOT STD ES-1 - 24"EA 1 $1,200.00$1,200 SIGNAGE / PAVEMENT MARKING CONCRETE FOUNDATION STP-1EA 5 $210.00$1,050 TRAFFIC SIGN SQUARE TUBE STEEL POST 2-1/2", 12 GA.LF 40 $50.00$2,000 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 4"LF 7,210 $0.85$6,129 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 6"LF 332 $1.20$398 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 8"LF 300 $1.70$510 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 24"LF 24 $9.00$216 TYPE III BARRICADE, 8'EA 12 $450.00$5,400 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC MOT LS 1 $50,000.00$50,000 BRIDGE BRIDGE$3,902,000.00$3,902,000 LS 1 MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLLS 1 $75,000.00$75,000 UTILITY RELOCATIONS - GAS, ELECTRIC LINES AND POLESLS 1 $1,000,000.00$1,000,000 SUB TOTAL$7,590,579 CSX ADMINISTRATIVE FEESLS 1 $250,000.00$250,000 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION @ 10%$759,058 CONTINGENCIES @ 15%$1,138,587 GRAND TOTAL$9,738,224 Pennoni Associates Inc. FREDC18001 Job No: 11/6/2018 Date Consulting Engineers MAG Project: Renaissance Drive Extension - 2 Lane BridgeDes By: BTN Subject: 30% Submittal EstimateChk By: ITEM UNITQUANTITYPRICETOTAL MOBILIZATION 1 $100,000.00$100,000 LS DEMOLITION REMOVAL OF SIDEWALKSY 108 $7.50$810 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT REMOVALSY 1,565 $24.00$37,560 REMOVAL OF EXISTING CURBLF 666 $10.00$6,660 REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORM PIPE 317 $10.00$3,170 LF REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORM STRUCTURESEA 4 $1,000.00$4,000 EARTHWORKS CLEARING AND GRUBBINGAC 7.3 $5,000.00$36,500 REGULAR EXCAVATION - CUT TO FILLCY 10,715 $7.00$75,005 STRUCTURAL FILL IMPORTCY 6,066 $32.00$194,112 REGULAR FILL IMPORTCY 50,211 $22.00$1,104,642 GRADINGSY 23,828 $0.50$11,914 SEEDINGLB 1,375 $10.50$14,438 PAVEMENT STD. COMB. CURB & GUTTER CG-6LF 2,040 $18.00$36,720 STD CG-12, (3)TYPE B & (1)TYPE ASY 36 $45.00$1,620 CG-12 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACESY 7 $270.00$1,890 HYDRAULIC CEMENT CONC. 4" SIDEWALK SY 545 $40.00$21,800 7' GRAVEL SHOULDER - NO.21B TON 421 $18.00$7,578 1.5" SURFACE COURSE - S-9.5ATON 638 $90.00$57,456 2.5" INTERMEDIATE COURSE - IM-19ATON 1,026 $105.00$107,772 6" BASE COURSE - BM-25.0TON 2,416 $75.00$181,200 10" AGGREGATE BASE - NO.21B TON 3,073 $18.00$55,310 TACK COATGAL 816 $3.50$2,856 GUARDRAIL / FENCING STD GR-2LF 876 $25.00$21,900 RADIAL GR-2LF 717 $25.00$17,925 DRAINAGE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESCY 5,915 $15.00$88,725 DITCHESCY 466 $15.00$6,990 VDOT STD. UD-4LF 2,588 $15.00$38,820 VDOT STD. CD-1LF 74 $12.50$925 VDOT STD. CD-2LF 250 $12.50$3,125 VDOT STD. EW-12EA 6 $700.00$4,200 VDOT STD. DI-3B, L=6"EA 4 $3,400.00$13,600 VDOT STD. DI-3C, L=6'EA 4 $3,800.00$15,200 STORM SEWER, CONC. PIPE, 15"LF 275 $46.00$12,650 STORM SEWER, CONC. PIPE, 24"LF 155 $65.00$10,075 VDOT STD ES-1 - 15"EA 1 $600.00$600 VDOT STD ES-1 - 24"EA 1 $1,200.00$1,200 SIGNAGE / PAVEMENT MARKING CONCRETE FOUNDATION STP-1EA 3 $210.00$630 TRAFFIC SIGN SQUARE TUBE STEEL POST 2-1/2", 12 GA.LF 24 $50.00$1,200 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 4"LF 7,210 $0.85$6,129 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 6"LF 332 $1.20$398 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 8"LF 300 $1.70$510 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 24"LF 24 $9.00$216 TYPE III BARRICADE, 8'EA 12 $450.00$5,400 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC MOT LS 1 $50,000.00$50,000 BRIDGE BRIDGE$2,500,000.00$2,500,000 LS 1 MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLLS 1 $75,000.00$75,000 UTILITY RELOCATIONS - GAS, ELECTRIC LINES AND POLESLS 1 $1,000,000.00$1,000,000 SUB TOTAL$5,938,431 CSX ADMINISTRATIVE FEESLS 1 $250,000.00$250,000 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION @ 10%$593,843 CONTINGENCIES @ 15%$890,765 GRAND TOTAL$7,673,038 Pennoni Associates Inc. FREDC18001 Job No: 11/6/2018 Date Consulting Engineers MAG Project: Renaissance Drive Extension - No Bridge, 2 Lane RoadDes By: BTN Subject: 30% Submittal EstimateChk By: ITEM UNITQUANTITYPRICETOTAL MOBILIZATION 1 $75,000.00$75,000 LS DEMOLITION REMOVAL OF SIDEWALKSY 108 $7.50$810 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT REMOVALSY 1,565 $24.00$37,560 REMOVAL OF EXISTING CURBLF 666 $10.00$6,660 REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORM PIPE 317 $10.00$3,170 LF REMOVAL OF EXISTING STORM STRUCTURESEA 4 $1,000.00$4,000 EARTHWORKS CLEARING AND GRUBBINGAC 7.1 $5,000.00$35,500 REGULAR EXCAVATION - CUT TO FILLCY 18,000 $7.00$126,000 STRUCTURAL FILL IMPORTCY 2,000 $32.00$64,000 REGULAR FILL IMPORTCY - $22.00$0 GRADINGSY 23,828 $0.50$11,914 SEEDINGLB 1,375 $10.50$14,438 PAVEMENT STD. COMB. CURB & GUTTER CG-6LF 2,040 $18.00$36,720 STD CG-12, (3)TYPE B & (1)TYPE ASY 36 $45.00$1,620 CG-12 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACESY 7 $270.00$1,890 HYDRAULIC CEMENT CONC. 4" SIDEWALK SY 545 $40.00$21,800 7' GRAVEL SHOULDER - NO.21B TON 421 $18.00$7,578 1.5" SURFACE COURSE - S-9.5ATON 678 $90.00$61,047 2.5" INTERMEDIATE COURSE - IM-19ATON 1,091 $105.00$114,508 6" BASE COURSE - BM-25.0TON 2,567 $75.00$192,525 10" AGGREGATE BASE - NO.21B TON 3,265 $18.00$58,767 TACK COATGAL 867 $3.50$3,035 GUARDRAIL / FENCING STD GR-2LF 600 $25.00$15,000 RADIAL GR-2LF 200 $25.00$5,000 DRAINAGE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESCY 5,915 $15.00$88,725 DITCHESCY 466 $15.00$6,990 VDOT STD. UD-4LF 2,588 $15.00$38,820 VDOT STD. CD-1LF 74 $12.50$925 VDOT STD. CD-2LF 250 $12.50$3,125 VDOT STD. EW-12EA 6 $700.00$4,200 VDOT STD. DI-3B, L=6"EA 4 $3,400.00$13,600 VDOT STD. DI-3C, L=6'EA 4 $3,800.00$15,200 STORM SEWER, CONC. PIPE, 15"LF 275 $46.00$12,650 STORM SEWER, CONC. PIPE, 24"LF 155 $65.00$10,075 VDOT STD ES-1 - 15"EA 1 $600.00$600 VDOT STD ES-1 - 24"EA 1 $1,200.00$1,200 SIGNAGE / PAVEMENT MARKING CONCRETE FOUNDATION STP-1EA 5 $210.00$1,050 TRAFFIC SIGN SQUARE TUBE STEEL POST 2-1/2", 12 GA.LF 40 $50.00$2,000 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 4"LF 7,210 $0.85$6,129 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 6"LF 332 $1.20$398 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 8"LF 300 $1.70$510 TYPE B CLASS I PAVE. LINE MARKING 24"LF 24 $9.00$216 TYPE III BARRICADE, 8'EA 12 $450.00$5,400 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC MOT LS 1 $50,000.00$50,000 RAILROAD AT-GRADE CROSSING RAILROAD AT-GRADE CROSSING$500,000.00$500,000 LS 1 MISCELLANEOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLLS 1 $75,000.00$75,000 REMOVAL OF SPRINGDALE RR CROSSING AND PROVIDE TURNAROUNDLS 1 $150,000.00$150,000 UTILITY RELOCATIONS - GAS, ELECTRIC LINES AND POLESLS 1 $300,000.00$300,000 SUB TOTAL$2,185,354 CSX ADMINISTRATIVE FEESLS 1 $350,000.00$350,000 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION @ 10%$218,535 CONTINGENCIES @ 15%$327,803 GRAND TOTAL$3,081,692 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT to the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Tuesday, January 29, 2019 8:00 a.m. 107 NORTH KENT STREET, SUITE 200, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ATTENDEES: Committee Members Present: J. Douglas McCarthy, Chairman; Gary A. Lofton; Whitney Whit L.Wagner; Gene E. Fisher; Robert W. Wells; and Harvey E. Ed Strawsnyder, Jr. Staff present: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works; Mike Stewart, Senior Project Manager; Ron Kimble, Landfill Manager; Kevin Alderman, Shawneeland District Manager; Rod Williams, County Attorney; Kris Tierney, County Administrator; Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Dir Place, Budget Analyst/Risk Manager Attachment 1 Agenda Packet ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 1-Building Inspections Discuss an agreement for permits on border properties. Rod Williams, County Attorney gave a brief update on a draft agreshould be used when a property crosses jurisdictional boundaries in relation to building inspections. As stated in Mr. Williams memorandum dated November 13, 2018, the building inspections department would like to update this agreement to be used in any future cas structures and permitting that cross these boundaries. Therefore, a motion was made by committee member Fisher recommendi resolution and draft agreement for approval by the Board of Superv seconded by committee member Strawsnyder and unanimously approved by the committee. Attachment 2 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY 1-Update on convenience site usage throughout the holidays. Gloria Puffinburger, Solid Waste Manager gave an update on usage during the holiday In total, 320 tons of refuse was placed in Frederick Countys convenience centers over the holiday season. The busiest sites were Greenwood and Albin. 2-Update on the disposition of the old mailbox house in Shawneeland. There have been on-going discussions regarding the old mailbox house in the Shawnee Sanitary District. Once the new southern mailbox was built in 20 going to be demolished. A group of citizens came forward to save the structure and were allowed to perform repairs and maintenance with no Shawneeland funds being spent. However, the question arose about future maintenance of the stru who should be responsible to clean up the site if trash, televisions, etc. are dropped off. At the October 30, 2018 Public Works Committee meeting, the commi- day study period of how much trash and debris would illegally be dropped off at the site during the study period. The study period ended in early January 2019. Therefore, Kevin Alderman, Shawneeland District Manager updated the committee at our meet the No Dumping sign was placed at the site on November 1, 2018, no trash or debris was dropped off. There were several residents that attended the meeting and they su information to the committee. The attached are the submitted items to include emails, letters and a petition with approximately 126 residents in support of sae. After further discussion, it was agreed to leave the old mailbox house with the following arrangement: 1.The citizens group is responsible for all maintenance and repairsr the property. 2.Frederick County staff will perform normal clean up, the same as Shawneeland. If the mailbox house becomes a trash dumping ground or other iss Committee can revisit this arrangement. Attachment 3 3-Discuss the Shawneeland Sanitary District Advisory Committee status. Supervisor Lofton brought up to the attention of the committee so about the current advisory committee. The first point is relate committee and whether this committee was a benefit to the citizens of Shawneeland, the staff and to the Board of Supervisors. After some discussions, it was committee does provide a benefit to all parties and that it shou future. The second point was whether members of the committee should be appointed, or should there be elections. Currently, members of the advisory committe of Supervisors. Many years ago, the members where elected but it did not work well, and it is very difficult to manage a fair election. Over the last 20 plus years, the advisory committee members were appointed by the Board of Supervisor after nominees met with the Supervisor and both parties agreed the nominee would be a good fit on the advisory committee. After some discussion, the committee decided to leave things as tthe members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. 4-Request for supplemental appropriation Animal Shelter reserve funds Professional Services line item for the new building addition. See the attached memorandum for details related to the supplemental request. A motion was made by Supervisor Lofton to approve and forward the Committee for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $50,000 from the Animal Shelter donations reserve fund and placed in the professional services line item for further design work on the Animal Shelter addition. The motion was seconded by comm Strawsnyder and unanimously approved by the committee. This request will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for furth these funds are from donations. Attachment 4 5-Update on landfill projects and Public Works projects. Ron Kimble, Landfill Manager updated the committee on several on-going projects at the landfill. Over the past year and in response to the record rainfall million-gallon leachate lagoon holding pond constructed to help manage rainfall run-off and comply with DEQ requirements. The lagoon was finished in Decemb are flowing into the new lagoon now. We are also putting in a n which should be finished in May 2019. We will continue to excavate rock material in our next landfill cell, Phase 3, Cell A over the next year. Mr. Kimble also informed the committee about an upcoming advertisement about discharge violations we have had with the Opequon Wastewater Reclamation Facility (OWRF). The OWRF staff are required by code to publish any violations in the local newspaper. We are working with OWRF staff to avoid future violations. We also informed the committee that the Crossover Boulevard Road Project is out for bid now. Bids are due on February 21, 2019. We had over 10 major contractors attend the mandatory pre-bid meeting. We plan to start construction in the spring and complete the project during the summer of 2021. We also informed the committee we are progressing on the replacement Albin Convenience Center project. 6-Discuss the fee schedule for Building Inspections Staff presented our current residential fee schedule in compariso also presented the last five years of revenue and expenditures to indicate we have exceeded our expenditures through revenue collection of building permit fees. After some discussion, it was determined to not raise any of our current fees. However, staff needs to look at possible fees for inspection of maintenance complaints, higher fees for violators of code issues, etc. This is something we will work on in the months ahead but will not be a part of the FY2020 budget process. Attachment 5 7-Discuss the fee schedule for the Engineering Department (LDP/VSMP). During the issuance of fees related to land disturbance permits/stormwater permits, Frederick County charges fees that where approved in 2014. The fees where developed by DEQ and are what most localities in Virginia are charging. We have recently added charging annual maintenance fees which will increase revenues over time. After discussions, the current fee schedule will not change, and we will continue to look at it during future budget cycles. Attachment 6 8-Discuss the concept of an enterprise fund budget for Building Inspections. Supervisor Lofton discussed his concerns with the Inspections Department collecting increased revenues over time but not able to purchase replacement vehicles during some budget years. Supervisor Lofton suggested the option of an enterprise fund budget. County Administrator Kris Tierney informed the committee that as for vehicle replacements, a new program was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2018 and that is should help in future budget years with vehicle replacement. Also, Finance Director Cheryl Shiffler provided information related to internal auditing of the Frederick County budget. She recommends that required county functions and services fall under the general fund budget. Operating the Inspections Department outside of a general fund process could cause some issues with auditing. Staff offered one option of a capital reserve line item to be created in the Building Inspections budget to put aside current funding to provide future vehicles. After addition discussion, the committee chose to keep the budgets under the general fund process and for staff to look at a capital reserve option in future budgets. 9-Discuss Fire Safety inspection fees. Currently, the Fire and Rescue department is looking at implementing a fire safety inspection fee schedule. Once the draft fee schedule is discussed and approved by the Public Safety Committee, it needs to be advanced to the Public Works Committee for review and discussion. Staff are unsure when the proposed fee schedule will be ready. 10-Miscellaneous Reports a)Tonnage Report b)Recycling Report c)Animal Shelter Dog Report d)Animal Shelter Cat Report Respectfully submitted, Public Works Committee J.Douglas McCarthy, Chairman Gary A. Lofton Robert W. Wells Whitney Whit L. Wagner Gene E. Fisher Harvey E. Ed Strawsnyder, Jr. By ____________________ Joe C. Wilder Public Works Director JCW/kco Attachments: as stated cc: Kris Tierney, County Administrator Jay Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator Ron Kimble, Landfill Manager Gloria Puffinburger, Solid Waste Manager Rod Williams, County Attorney Erin Swisshelm, Assistant County Attorney Mike Stewart, Senior Project Manager Kevin Alderman, Shawneeland District Manager Kathy Whetzel, Animal Shelter Manager Bill Orndoff, Treasurer Wayne Corbett, Deputy Treasurer Dennis Linaburg, Fire and Rescue Chief file MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works SU BJECT: Meeting of January 29, 2019 DATE: January 24, 2019 There will be a meeting of the Public Works Committee on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at in the conference room located on the second floor of the north end of the County 8:00 a.m. Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Suite 200. The agenda thus far is as follows: 1.Update on convenience site usage throughout the holidays. (Attachment 1) 2.Update on the disposition of old mailbox house in the Shawneeland Sanitary District. 3.Discuss the ShawneelandSanitary District Advisory Committee status. (Attachment 2) 4.Request for supplemental appropriation – Animal Shelter reserve funds for Professional Servicesline item for the new building addition. Attachment 3) ( 5.Update on Landfill Projects and Public Works projects. 6.Inspections-Discuss an agreement for permits on border properties. (Attachment 4) 7.Discuss fee schedule for Building Inspections. 8.Discuss fee schedule for the Engineering Department(LDP/VSMP Fees). 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Public Works Committee Meeting Agenda Page 2 January 24, 2019 9.Discuss the concept of an enterprise fund budget for Building Inspections. 10.D iscussfire safety inspection fees. 11.M iscellaneous Reports: a.Tonnage Report: Landfill (Attachment 5) b.Recycling Report Attachment 6) ( c.Animal Shelter Dog Report: (Attachment 7) d.Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 8) JCW/kco Attachments:as stated 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Gloria M. Puffinburger Solid Waste Manager RE: 2018Holiday Usage Summary; DATE: January 16, 2019 _______________________________________________________________________ During the 2018 holiday period which included Christmas Eve through Friday, January4,staff od. A 4,257utilized the Albin location. Asexpected, traffic spiked during the period,peaking at 739 at Albin and 744 at Greenwood on Thurs., December 27, the first operationalday following Christmas. Traffic totals are consistent with 2017 figures. The Albin site took in 44.8tons of holiday refuse while Greenwood managed 40.3tons.In-house design work for a replacement Albinfacility is underway. 319.8 tons ofrefuse attributable to the data from 2015, 2016 and 2017. /gmp cc:file MEMORANDUM TO: Pu blic Works Committee FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Supplemental Appropriation Request Animal Shelter Reserve Fund – Building Addition – Professional Services DATE: January 24, 2019 Over the past year, a design was performed for a training facility building at the Frederick County Esther Boyd Animal Shelter. The funds for the design and building are to be from donated funds. Currently, the design of the building is complete, but we must complete the design specifications, develop a bid package and the provide professional services during construction. In order to complete the bid package a supplemental appropriation request for funding from the Animal Shelter reserve is required. We are requesting an additional $50,000 be appropriated from the reserve fund 10-240-2501 and placed in the professional services design/engineeringline item 10-4305-3002-02. Our plan is to advertise the bid package during March and April 2019. Once we receive bids, staff will come back to the Board of Supervisors for a funding request for the building. JCW/kco 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: MonthlyTonnage Report -Fiscal Year 18/19 DATE: January 7, 2019 The following is the tonnage for the months of July 2017through June 2018, and the average monthly tonnage for fiscal years 03/04 through 18/19. 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) FY 13-14:AVERAGE PER MONTH:12,468TONS (UP 403TONS) FY 14-15:AVERAGE PER MONTH:13,133TONS(UP 665TONS) FY 15-16:AVERAGE PER MONTH:13,984 TONS (UP 851 TONS) FY 16-17:AVERAGE PER MONTH:14,507TONS(UP 523 TONS) FY 17-18:AVERAGE PER MONTH:15,745TONS(UP 1,238 TONS) FY 18-19:AVERAGE PER MONTH:16,506 TONS(UP 761 TONS) MONTHFY 2017-2018FY 2018-2019 JULY 15,46517,704 AUGUST 17,69418,543 SEPTEMBER 16,81314,799 OCTOBER 15,85318,158 NOVEMBER 16,10915,404 DECEMBER 12,64414,426 JANUARY 13,295 FEBRUARY 13,100 MARCH 15,510 APRIL 15,469 MAY 18,755 JUNE 18,228 JCW/gmp BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM T O: Public Works Committee FROM: Joe C. Wilder, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Supplemental Appropriation Request Animal Shelter Reserve Fund – Building Addition – Professional Services DATE: January 24, 2019 Over the past year, a design was performed for a training facility building at the Frederick County Esther Boyd Animal Shelter. The funds for the design and building are to be from donated funds. Currently, the design of the building is complete, but we must complete the design specifications, develop a bid package and the provide professional services during construction. In order to complete the bid package a supplemental appropriation request for funding from the Animal Shelter reserve is required. We are requesting an additional $50,000 be appropriated from the reserve fund 10-240-2501 and placed in the professional services design/engineeringline item 10-4305-3002-02. Our plan is to advertise the bid package during March and April 2019. Once we receive bids, staff will come back to the Board of Supervisors for a funding request for the building. JCW/kco 107 North Kent Street, Second Floor, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RESOLUTION Frederick County Board of Supervisors RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2018 NORTHERN SHENANDOAH VALLEY REGION MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, provided the legal basis for state, tribal, and local governments to undertake risk-based approaches to reducing natural hazard risks through mitigation planning, and specifically, the Act requires state, tribal, and local governments todevelop and adopt FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans as a condition for receiving certain typesof non-emergency disasterassistance, and WHEREAS, under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, every locality recognized by the State Code that adopts a local or regional hazard mitigation plan every five years, remains eligible for the funding opportunities offered through the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and therefore, by adopting this Plan update, the localities included in this Plan update will remain eligible for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds and the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs,and WHEREAS, theVirginia Department of Emergency Management's Emergency Operations Plan Standard Hazard Mitigation Plan, Support Annex 3 (Volume II) requires each of Virginia's cities, counties, and towns totake an active role in developing ahazard mitigation plan for their respective areas, andit was the intent of the Commonwealth of Virginia to combine as many of the mitigation plans as possible into regional, multi-jurisdictional plans using the PDCs astheplanning agencies for these efforts,and WHEREAS, preparation of this 2018 Plan update was carried out by the local Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission (VA Planning District Commission 7) under funds secured from the VDEM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County of Frederick adopts the 2018 Northern Shenandoah Valley Region Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Passed this 13th day of February 2019by the following recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman___Gary A. Lofton___ J. Douglas McCarthy___ Judith McCann-Slaughter ___ Shannon G. Trout___ Blaine P. Dunn___ Robert W. Wells___ A COPY ATTEST ___________________________ Kris C. Tierney or Frederick County Administrat NSVRC 2018 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update This 2018 update to the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (plan up requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) at 4-390, signed into law October 10, 2000 which amends the 1988 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emerge The plan update is intended for the same Northern Shenandoah Valley Region plann Under the Act DMA2K, every locality recognized by the State Code that adopts a local or regional hazard every five years, remains eligible for the funding opportunities Management Agency (FEMA), as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Therefore, by adopting this Plan update, the localities included in this Plan update will remain and the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs which includ-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repe The contents of this plan update are organized slightly differen introduction to hazard mitigation and hazard mitigation planning, regional hazards identification and risks assessment, a capabili strategies, and an outline for plan maintenance. There were 5 declared disasters since the 2012 update, as outlin (HIRA) section of the plan update. The 2012 Plan served as a baseline for the 2018 HIRA and is updated therein. The risk assessment includes a description of the jurisdiction's vulnerab each hazard and its impact on the community. Unless otherwise st with the same likelihood of impact and each locality is considered to be e. Hazards were identified and ranked according to discussions durin-line survey issued to localities, helping identify public concern. The on-line survey was available during throughout the update planning concerns rendered from the 2018 Northern Shenandoah Valley Regio to mostly align with the results of the 2012 survey. The hazards that were of highest concern to survey respondents were severe winter weather, high winds and wildfire. Flooding a concern in areas of the region. The information from this survedate/confirm the hazards rankings from the 2012 plan. These rankings are described in Table 4.3, found The 2018 hazards featured in this plan rank the same as those femitigation priorities may have shifted. Outcomes of the Planning Teams hazard evaluations included acknowledgement of winter ice storms and flooding as major natural hazards threatening the region. Flooding was ranked as the number one natural hazard, in terms of most damaging. All hazard maps featured in this Plan have been updated with the bes recent data available. An online portal (http://nsvregion.org/hazard-mitigation.html) was developed under the 2018 update, which includes downloadable hazard maps and interactive *Note: The 2018 Update is available on the Frederick County, Virginia, website as a companion document to the February 13, 2019, Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting Agenda at: http://www.fcva.us/bos 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: February 11, 2019 RE: Autumn Glen Subdivision Sections 2, 5 and 6 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: Spanish Oak Road, State Route Number 1477 0.17 miles Spanish Oak Road, State Route Number 1477 0.05 miles Sadi Court, State Route Number 1617 0.13 miles Sarvis Court, State Route Number 1616 0.06 miles Sarvis Court, State Route Number 1616 0.06 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 13th day of February, adopted the following: WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated 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 33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the 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. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Blaine P. Dunn Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter A COPY ATTEST _____________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator PDRes. #01-19 In the County of Frederick By resolution of the governing body adopted February 13, 2019 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 of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official): ____________________________________________ Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Project/Subdivision Autumn Glen, Sections 2, 5, 6 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:§33.2-705 Street Name and/or Route Number Spanish Oak Road, State Route Number 1477 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 642, Tasker Road To: Route 1616, Sarvis Court, a distance of: 0.17 miles. Recordation Reference: Instrument #020006601 Right of Way width (feet) = 50' Street Name and/or Route Number Spanish Oak Road, State Route Number 1477 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1616, Sarvis Court To: Route 1475, Lynn Drive, a distance of: 0.05 miles. Recordation Reference: Instrument #020006601 Right of Way width (feet) = 50' Street Name and/or Route Number Sadi Court, State Route Number 1617 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1616, Sarvis Court To: cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.13 miles. Recordation Reference: Instrument #060010259,120010455,150001201 Right of Way width (feet) = 46' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: February 13, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Street Name and/or Route Number Sarvis Court, State Route Number 1616 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1617, Sadi Court To: cul-de-sac, a distance of: 0.06 miles. Recordation Reference: Instrument #060010259,120010455,150001201 Right of Way width (feet) = 46' Street Name and/or Route Number Sarvis Court, State Route Number 1616 Old Route Number: 0 From: Route 1477, Spanish Oak Road To: Route 1617, Sadi Court, a distance of: 0.06 miles. Recordation Reference: Instrument #060010259,120010455,150001201 Right of Way width (feet) = 46' VDOT Form AM-4.3 (4/20/2007) Maintenance Division Date of Resolution: Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, there exist parcels of land which lie partially within the County of Frederick and one or more surrounding localitieswithin the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS , the circumstances of these lots may create confusion as towhich localityisproperlycharged with issuing building permits and enforcing the Uniform Building Codewith regard to structures which are, or are to be located,on such lots; and WHEREAS ,cooperation between the localities in which such parcels of land lie would lead to the efficient administration of government and enforcement of the Uniform Building Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors authorizes theCounty Administrator or Building Official to enter into agreements with surrounding localities within the Commonwealth for the purposes of enforcement of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code concerning structures which are presently, or which are to be in the future, located on lots which are located partially within Frederick County and partially within the surrounding locality. th Adopted this 13day of February, 2019. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., ChairmanGary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthyRobert W. Wells Blaine P. DunnShannon Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter A COPY ATTEST __________________________ Kris C. Tierney Frederick County Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Office of the County Administrator M E M O R A N D U M To: Board of Supervisors From:Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Date: 2-8-19 Re:Mountain Falls Park Residents’ Request for Designation of a Sanitary District ================================================================================ On April 3, 2018, a petition for designation as a sanitary district in the Mountain Falls/Wilde Acres subdivision was received in the County Administrator’s office. The following is a timeline of events responsive to the request: 4-04-18 With the Code of Virginia requiring 50valid signatures,Voter Registrar Rick Miller verified that the petition contained 63 valid voter signatures. 4-25-18 The County Administrator noted the Code requires that the Board hold a public hearing andseek to answer the questions of whether the creation of the proposed sanitary district is: necessary, practical, fiscally responsible and supported by fifty percent (50%) of its residents. The Board set and advertised a public hearing for June 13, 2018. 6-13-18The public hearing was opened, six speakers were heard,andthe hearing was continued to a future date. The matter was referred to the Public Works Committee for study and development of a process for petitioning the Board to create a sanitary district. 7-31-18The Public Works Committee created a subcommittee to research the issue, develop guidelines and procedures and determine the costs associated with creating a sanitary district. 11-20-18The subcommittee presented a fact sheet and draft procedures as well as estimated costs (see attached)for improving the road system at Mountain Falls up to minimum standards. They estimated an annual operating budget of $500,000 to maintain the roads in the district. 12-13-18The Fact Sheet Regarding the Creation of SanitaryDistrictsand the Sanitary District Petition Procedure(see attached)were adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The continued public hearing was scheduled for February 13, 2019, and the public hearing notice was re-advertised in the Winchester Starthree times prior to the hearing date. Since the original request was made last April, there have been 95 individual communications (either petitions, email, or phone calls) (see attached samples)from approximately 80 separate addresses. Of the 95, three were in opposition to the sanitary district designation with 92 in favor. Several of these persons also spoke during the public hearing. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attachment #1 Updated cost estimates for Road Improvements Wilde Acres/ Mountain Falls Park Subdivision September 12, 2018 Updated data for subdivision: Based on Frederick County GIS data: Total Area of subdivision: 960 acres Total Platted Lots: 2,079 Total Developed Lots: 504 Total undeveloped lots: 1,575 Total Planned Road System: Approx. 27 miles Total Road System Built: (mix of gravel, tar and chip, dirt surfa Unbuilt Roads: Approx. 2 miles Cost estimate to upgrade existing Roads: (work would be bid out and performed by a contractor/ County ove ** Estimate includes culvert replacement/ upgrade, clean out ditc rip rap stone, place crusher run (21B) stone over road surface, shape and roll stone, tar and chip roads (prime and double seal) Based on actual costs in Shawneeland and other roadsin County: Price per mile: $60,000 Cost to upgrade improved roads: 25 miles(road) X $60,000 = $1,500,000 Cost to upgrade unimproved roads Approx. 2 miles **Cost estimate includes items from above estimate plus: enginee grubbing trees brush, road construction, survey stake out Cost to upgrade roads: 2 miles X 100,000 = $200,000 Other costs: Boundary survey of subdivision (licensed surveyor): Surveying work in support of road upgrades: (right of way stakeo construction survey support): $40,000 Fact Sheet Regarding the Creation of Sanitary Districts Virginia law permits residents of a neighborhood or other area to submit a petition to their local governing body for the creation of a sanitary district, provided that such petition contains at least fifty (50) signatures of qualified voters within the proposed district. If the proposed sanitary district would include fewer than 100 qualified voters, then fifty percent (50%) of qualified voters must sign the petition. Once a petition is submitted, the Board of Supervisors is required to schedule and then conduct a public hearing on the petition. After that public hearing, the Board must determine whether the creation of a new Sanitary District is: 1.Necessary 2.Practical 3.Fiscally responsible, and 4.Supported by at least 50% of persons who own real property within the proposed district. In order to answer these questions, the Board of Supervisors will need additional information beyond what is required for a petition. Examples of this information include: What specific services the Petitioners wish a sanitary district to provide What concerns, if any, the Petitioners have about the condition of roads and other common areas within the proposed sanitary district Whether a Property Owners’ Association (POA) exists within the proposed sanitary district. If a POA exists: Is it financially able to address the concerns noted by the Petitioners? o If the POA cannot address the concerns, has it exercised all its remedies under the law to improve its o ability to address issues? The extent and condition of roads, openspace, or any other common areas that may potentially be included in the Sanitary District, if one is created. Repairs, if any, that are necessary to maintain safe conditions on roads and in common spaces, and the estimated costs of those repairs. Additional work that may be necessary to bring the area within the proposed sanitary district up to a safe operating standard such as: The approximate cost of yearly operation of the proposed sanitary district, including staffing, o equipment, supplies, and anycontracted work that would be necessary. The approximate cost of establishing, by survey, the boundary of the proposed sanitary district, if o not already established by previous survey or instrument. Polling information, of all record owners of real property within the proposed sanitary district, inquiring whether they support its creation. The Board expects that Petitioners will provide, following the submission of their Petition, the following information: The specific services they are seeking from a potential sanitary district; Specific concerns that they have regarding the condition of roads and other common areas within the proposed district; Polling information of all record owners of real property within the proposed district, regarding whether they support the creation of a sanitary district; and Any information in their possession that is listed above or may be helpful to the Board in deciding whether to create a sanitary district. While the Board will not make the decision on the Petition until a public hearing is held, having the relevant information from Petitioners prior to the hearing will ensure that the Board has ample time to review it. Petitioners or other residents may submit information to the Director of Public Works (Countystaff contact). Sanitary District Petition Procedure The following procedures shall apply to the consideration and processing of petitions for the creation of new sanitary districts submitted by residents of Frederick County: 1.Once a petition is received by the County, staff will verify that the Petition, at a minimum, requests the creation of a sanitary district, at least roughly identifies the area to be encompassed therein, and bears fifty (50) signatures. If the submission does not meet this standard, it will not be processed further until such information is provided. 2.If the above standard is met, staff will send the Petition signatures to the Voter Registrar to verify that they are, in fact, registered voters who live within the proposed district. a.If there are not fifty (50) signatures of registered voters who reside within the proposed district, the Petition will not be processed further, until such signatures are procured by the applicant. 3.Provided that the petition requirements are met, the Petition will be put on the agenda for a meeting of the Board of Supervisors. 4.At the appointed meeting, the date for a public hearing on the submitted Petition should be set. The meeting will be scheduled with the consideration of the publication requirements (three weeks of consecutive notice in the local paper, and at least ten (10) days to pass between the running of the third ad and the date of the hearing). a.At the hearing, the Board may wish to refer the Petition to a committee for further discussion or study (i.e. to the Public Works Committee). b.The Board may also direct staff to correspond with the Petitioners to inform them of information the Board will wish to have presented at the public hearing, to aid the Board in answering the questions required by the Virginia Code. Those questions are whether the creation of the proposed sanitary district is: i.Necessary ii.Practical iii.Fiscally responsible, and iv.Supported by at least 50% of persons who own real property within the proposed district. 5.If the matter is referred to a Committee, the Committee will begin the process of gathering information from the Petitioners and Staff to submit to the Board to aid it in its determination. a.Information that the Committee may wish to have includes, but is not limited to: i.From Petitioners: 1.What specific services the Petitioners wish a sanitary district to provide. 2.What concerns, if any, the Petitioners have about the condition of roads and other common areas within the proposed sanitary district. 3.Whether a Property Owners’ Association (POA) exists within the proposed sanitary district. If a POA exists: a.Whether it is financially able to address the concerns noted by the Petition. b.If the POA cannot address the concerns, whether it exercised all its remedies under the law to improve its ability to address identified issues. 4.Polling data of the record owners of real property within the proposed sanitary district, indicating whether such owners support the creation of the proposed sanitary district. Such data should indicate the percentage of property owners who answered in the affirmative, the percentage who answered in the negative, and the percentage who did not respond. ii.From Staff: 1.The condition of roads, utilities, open space, or any other common areas or services that may potentially be included in the Sanitary District, if one is created. Such information should include: a.Repairs, if any, that are necessary to maintain safe conditions on roads and in common spaces, and the estimated costs of those repairs. b.Additional work that would be necessary to bring the area within the proposed sanitary district up to a safe operating standard, and the estimated cost of that work. c.Identification of any parcels that would not benefit from inclusion in the sanitary district, or for which inclusion is not necessary or fiscally responsible. 2.The approximate cost of yearly operation of the proposed sanitary district, including staffing, equipment, supplies, and any contracted work that would be necessary. 3.The approximate tax or sanitary district fee that would be charged to residents to support the operations of the proposed district, if created. 4.The approximate cost of establishing, by survey, the boundary of the proposed sanitary district, if not already established by previous survey or instrument. 5.The present rate of property tax collection within the proposed sanitary district, as determined by the Treasurer’s Office. b.Once the Committeehas studied the matter and considered any additional items that the Board has requested, the Committee will forward its findings to the Board. 6.At that public hearing, any person who owns property in the proposed sanitary district, or any person who resides in the proposed sanitary district may speak or present evidence in favor of the creation of the district, or in opposition to the creation of the district. 7.After the public hearing has been held, the Board must determine whether the creation of the proposed sanitary district is necessary, practical, fiscally responsible, and supported by at least fifty percent (50%) of the persons owning real estate within the proposed district. a.If the Board finds facts sufficient to determine that the creation of the proposed sanitary district is necessary, practical, fiscally responsible, and supported by fifty percent (50%) of the persons owning real estate therein, then the Board may pass an ordinance establishing the new sanitary district, and which prescribes its metes and bounds. The Board may exclude from the Sanitary District any parcel that would either not be benefitted by the new sanitary district, or for which it was not able to find facts sufficient for inclusion. b.If the Board does not find sufficient facts to support the creation of the sanitary district, it should take action to deny the petition. REZONING APPLICATION #04-18 TASKER ROAD & WARRIOR DRIVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: February 1, 2019 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director ReviewedAction Planning Commission: 12/05/18Public Hearing Held; Postponed Planning Commission: 01/16/19Action ItemHeld; Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 02/13/19Pending PROPOSAL: Torezone 20.24+/-acres from the B2 (General Business) District withproffersto the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers and 0.62+/-acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP (Residential Performance) District with revised proffers. LOCATION: Thesubject properties are located in the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 02/13/19BOARD OF SUPERVISORSMEETING: This is an application to rezone20.24+/-acres from the B2 (General Business) Districtand 0.62+/- acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) Districtwith proffers to the B2 and RP Districts with revised proffers. The subject property was rezoned to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers in 1998.The approved Rezoning#002-98 required that businesses be closed from 11p.m.to 6a.m. The Applicant is requesting toamend the hours of operation text to limit the closure to the public during those hours. Employees would still be allowed to be inthebusiness. The Applicant has further stated that deliveries will not be permitted from 11p.m. to 6 a.m. TheApplicant has also revised the fire and rescue monetary proffer and removed a transportation study proffer as this is already completed duringthesite plan stage of development and is unnecessary for the proffer statement. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this rezoning on December 5, 2018. The Commission expressed concern over the hours of operation, noise from the businessesand associated deliveries. Ultimately,the Commission postponed this item to allow the Applicant to address the expressed concerns. The Planning Commission discussed this item again on July 16, 2019. The Commission expressed concern regarding the hoursof operation, noise and truck deliveries. The th Commission ultimately recommended denial of this rezoning. Since the January 16meeting,the Applicant has revised the proffer statement. The revision states that the business must be closed to the publicfrom 11pm-6am. This would give the opportunity for employees to still be in the building. The proffer still prohibits deliveries from 11pm-6am. Rezoning #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties February 1, 2019 Page 2 The proposed proffers are as follows (Dated April 8, 1998, Revised January 18, 2019): A.Prohibited Land Uses The Owners proffer to prohibit the following land uses that are permitted within the B-2, Business General District portion of the Property from being developed: Land Use Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations (pumps at convenience stores allowed) Hotels and Motels Organization Hotels and Lodging Funeral Service and Crematories Car Washes Golf Driving Ranges/Miniature Golf Courses Membership Organizations Commercial Batting Cages Operated Outdoors Adult Retail Uses B. Restricted Hours of Operation The Owners proffer to restrict hours of operation for land uses that are permitted within the B-2, Business General District portion of the Property by requiring the businesses to be closed to the public from 11:00pm to 6:00am. Additionally, the owners proffer to prohibit deliveries to all land uses that are permitted within the B-2, Business General District portion of the property from 11:00pm to 6:00am. Land Use SIC Code Eating and Drinking Places 58 Miscellaneous Repair Services 76 Amusement and Recreational Services Operated Indoors 79 C.Property Development Requirements The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a monetary contribution of $0.10 per developed building square foot for County Fire and Rescue services. The monetary contribution shall be made payable to Frederick County at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy Permit for any primary structure constructed on the Property. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning 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 #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties February 1, 2019 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: 12/05/18 Public Hearing Held; Postponed Planning Commission: 01/16/19 Action Item Held; Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 02/13/19 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 20.24+/- acres from the B2 (General Business) District with proffer to the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers and 0.62+/- acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP (Residential Performance) District with revised proffers. LOCATION: The subject properties are located in the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 75-A-104 and 75-A-104E PROPERTY ZONING : B2 (General Business) District and RP (Residential Performance) District PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: B2 (General Business) Use: Commercial RP (Residential Performance Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential Rezoning #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties February 1, 2019 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Planning & Zoning: 1)Site History On April 8, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #002-98 which rezoned the subject property from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the B2 (General Business) District with proffers. 2)Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2035 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. The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County. Land Use The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a future Neighborhood Village. The existing B2 (General Business) District zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The properties are also within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 12/05/18 MEETING: Staff presented an overview of the rezoning request. Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, representing the Applicant gave a brief overview of the request. He explained, the purpose of this request is the owner recently had a group look at the property for purchase; this group noted the limited hours of operation are a detriment to the property. Mr. Wyatt continued, with that in mind the Applicant wants to maintain the integrity of what was approved; what was done with the prohibited land uses they have maintained everything that was prohibited with the original proffers and added new commercial uses that have been approved over time that were not part of the 1998 zoning code. Mr. Wyatt noted, looking at the adjoining residential uses, the Applicant thought it would still be appropriate to keep the hours of restriction on uses that would be louder in the evening such as restaurants, bars, amusement, and recreational services. Mr. Wyatt concluded, the Fire & Rescue proffer was a one-time payment that was done with the first site plan on the other side of the road and the Applicant felt it was appropriate to make sure there was proffer money coming in for future commercial development on this side for Fire & Rescue. Rezoning #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties February 1, 2019 Page 5 A Commission Member reminded everyone that the restriction was put in place because of the noise concerns shared by neighbors. His concern is how the surrounding neighborhoods will be protected from the noise; a grocery store having tractor trailers with night deliveries will create a lot of noise and there is a senior development directly behind this property. A Commission Member asked how this would be explained to the neighbors. Mr. Wyatt commented, the first thing that would be explained is the proffer amendment does nothing to the requirements for the buffer and screening between the commercial property and the senior subdivision which in this case would be a six-foot-high opaque element and landscaping so that would assist with the noise levels. A Commission Member inquired what square footage of buildings can fit on the property. Mr. Wyatt explained, on the 5-acre parcel the maximum would be approximately 25,000 SF and on the 16-acre parcel approximately 100,000 SF. Mr. Wyatt stated, therefore $10,000 to $15,000 could go towards Fire & Rescue. A Commission Member inquired could there be a way to arrange the buildings so the tractor trailer deliveries and parking could be on the side of the buildings rather than in the back. Mr. Wyatt responded, the orientation of the building is to face Warrior Drive; the depth of the property to have the buffer and 120 feet of depth to get to the building may dictate that it is on Tasker Road; he will have to look at the site before he could agree to that condition. A neighboring resident asked where the entrance would be on the 5-acre parcel and will there be more than one entrance. Mr. Wyatt displayed maps and described the possible entrances. A Commission Member commented, the neighborhoods surrounding this property trust the Planning Commission and the decisions made in the past; he cannot support this and break that commitment to the citizens. Another Commission Member suggested to restrict the tractor trailer delivery times from occurring in the middle of the night. A Commission Member noted if that could be accomplished, he may consider this request. A Commission Member noted that restriction would be difficult to enforce. A Commission Member requested a comment from Staff. Staff explained this could not be handled at the site plan process unless a proffered restriction was added; notes on the site plan if there were a proffer in place to restrict the hours, at that time it would become an enforcement issue if violated. Staff commented it would be up to the Applicant to offer this as a proffer. Mr. Wyatt concluded, reasonable comments have been made and Mr. Wyatt would prefer an opportunity to talk to the property owner and would agree to a postponement. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to postpone the rezoning to the January 16, 2019 meeting. (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent from the meeting.) PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FROM THE 01/16/19 MEETING: Staff reported this is a request to rezone 20.24+/- acres from the B2 (General Business) District with proffers to the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers and 0.62+/- acres of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP (Residential Performance) District with revised proffers. Staff continued, the subject property was rezoned with proffers in 1998 and the approved Rezoning #002-98 required that businesses be closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. It was noted this item was postponed at the December 5, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Staff presented location maps of the property and explained, the Applicant is requesting to remove the hours of operation for the Rezoning #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties February 1, 2019 Page 6 majority of land uses allowed in the B2 District that could be constructed on this property. Ms. Perkins continued, hours of operation for restaurants, miscellaneous repair and amusement services are proposed to be restricted from 11 p.m. 6 a.m. and all other uses could operate 24 hours. It was noted, the Applicant has added a new proffer that prohibits deliveries to all uses from 11 p.m. 6 a.m. Ms. Perkins concluded, the minor revisions also include updates to include SIC codes, transportation study proffer (to be completed during the site plan stage), and a revised fire and rescue monetary contribution. A Commission Member inquired if the entrances can be blocked during the hours of 11 p.m.- 6 a.m. Staff commented the Applicant would have to agree to this and it would take place during the site plan stage. A Commission Member asked, with the restricted hours of operation, who enforces this. It was explained Staff would have to enforce if complaints are received. Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering and representing the Applicant presented an overview of the public hearing held on December 5, 2018; after discussion, the question from the Planning Commission was concern with delivery trucks between the hours of 11 p.m.- 6 a.m. particularly tractor trailers and refrigerated trucks that might sit and idle late into the night. He continued, a question was asked if something could be included in the proffer to prohibit this and Mr. Wyatt noted that could not be committed to at that time. Mr. Wyatt reported, he was contacted by the HOA and the property management group of Autumn Glen; they were able to meet and discuss options. The Applicant was asked to provide a detailed outline of what they are planning to do regarding storm water management, lights, noise, and buffering. Mr. Wyatt noted this was provided to the HOA. Mr. Wyatt clarified, they are requesting to maintain the same uses that were originally prohibited and added a couple additional uses that have been applied to the zoning ordinance over the last 20 years that were not part of the original rezoning. Mr. Wyatt stated the concerns with buffering, lighting, water would all be appropriate and adhered to the County codes. Mr. Wyatt concluded, although not an ideal situation; the Applicant has added additional language to the proffer which prohibits deliveries between 11 p.m.- 6 a.m. A Commission Member inquired what happens if delivery trucks arrive late, sits there idling all night; that is not prohibited according to the current language in the proffers. Mr. Wyatt asked is it the language going to the Board of Supervisors would be more appropriate stating deliveries and staging of vehicles during 11p.m.- 6 a.m. are prohibited. The Commission Member commented it could read no delivery trucks on the site during that time. Mr. Wyatt noted, this could be considered. The Commission Member commented, all concerns are enforceable with the exception of the noise; this neighborhood has been there 20 years and living there with the commitment of this protection. He noted, the tools to enforce this are not good and he feels this commitment to the neighbors needs to be upheld. Mr. Wyatt noted, if the restricted hours are maintained that does not guarantee or prevent trucks on the property; they are willing to offer that tractor trailer parking be prohibited on the properties from 11 p.m. 6 a.m. The Commission Member inquired regarding SIC codes, what would be the most intense use. Mr. Wyatt responded most likely a grocery store. A Commission Member commented another use possible on the property would b A Commission Member concluded, he has received ten emails and a few letters and will share these with Staff; all of which were unanimously against this type of rezoning. He reiterated the concern to enforce the restrictions and noted just because the developer cannot sell the property and now wants to make changes to make the property more valuable and appealing to a buyer does not justify this and Rezoning #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties February 1, 2019 Page 7 changes should not be made to what was committed to at the initial rezoning. The Commission Member noted he will not be in support of this. A Commission Member agreed and commented the citizens purchased those homes with this commitment in place and that should not change. Motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to recommend denial of this request. (Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting.) Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning 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. MACEDONIAMACEDONIAWAKELAND105408 DORNACH CT CRAIG DR 108 CHELTENHAM DR 1251 REZ # 04 - 18: Tasker Rd and Warrior Dr Commercial Property CH RD CH RDDR 1211 CHELTENHAM DR MACEDONIA 103 MACEDONIA 96 CH RD KEVERNE CT CH RD WAKELAND 107 WAKELAND1261 PINs: 75 - A - 104, 75 - A - 104E 104 101 KEVERNE CT DR MANOR MACEDONIA 105 1255 CHELTENHAM DR 1200 KEVERNE CT CH RD KEVERNE CT MACEDONIA Subdivision Rezoning from B2 and RP with Proffers to B2 and RP with Revised Proffers 101103 109 MACEDONIA 1226 CH RD CHELTENHAM DRWINTON LN CH RDKEVERNE CT 1244 MACEDONIA CH RD 102 Zoning Map MACEDONIA 100 CHELTENHAM DR 1232 1218 111 CH RD KEVERNE CT 1220 101 MACEDONIA MACEDONIA KEVERNE CT 102 MACEDONIA CH RDWINTON LN 1238 CH RD 1220 KEVERNE CT CH RD MACEDONIA MACEDONIA CH RD 1270 106 110 CH RD MACEDONIA KEVERNE CT 1286 KEVERNE CT 100 201 CH RD MACEDONIA 211 CROSS 108 106 1423 1314 CROSS CH RD CROSS KEYS PL KEVERNE CT CROSS MACEDONIA MACEDONIA KEYS PL KEYS PL KEYS PL104 CH RD CH RD 1320 106 110 QUEENS MACEDONIA MACEDONIA ACRES QUEENS 1275 CROSS KEYS PLWAY CH RD WAY Subdivision TASKER RD 105 208 108QUEENS WAY 1403 CROSS 110 QUEENS MACEDONIA KEYS PL QUEENS 110 WAY CH RD WAY SPANISH OAK RD 112 1340 109 QUEENS WAY MACEDONIA 1418 SPANISH MOSBY 1400 CH RD REZ #04-18 MACEDONIA 114 OAK RD STATION MACEDONIA CH RD QUEENS 111 Subdivision CH RD WAY 75 A 104 SPANISH 122 114 OAK RD 126 LUCY 115 124 SPANISH LUCY 115 LONG CT BAYBERRY CT LUCY 120 OAK RD LONG CT SPANISH LONG CT 110 BAYBERRY CT120 118 OAK RD BAYBERRY CT 128 LUCY LONG CT SPANISH OAK RD 122 LUCY 122102 114 BAYBERRY CT 119 LONG CT SPANISHBAYBERRY CT BAYBERRY CT 123 SPANISH 121 100 127 121 OAK RD LUCY LONG CT OAK RD BAYBERRY CT BAYBERRY CT LUCY LUCY LONG CT LONG CT 107 125 119 BAYBERRY CT LUCY LONG CT 127 LUCY LONG CT 200 SPANISH 115 LYNN DR 206 OAK RD BAYBERRY CT 100 LYNN DR 131202 SARVIS CT REZ #04-18 SPANISHLYNN DR 208 214 OAK RD LYNN DR 660 LYNN DR 220 135 75 A 104E WARRIOR DR LYNN DR 101 SPANISH SARVIS CT OAK RD 122 118 218 CEDAR CEDAR 228 LYNN DR 300224 MOUNTAIN DR MOUNTAIN DR LYNN DR 126 215 221 LYNN DRLYNN DR CEDAR 124 LYNN DR LYNN DR MOUNTAIN DR CEDAR 217 223 229 MOUNTAIN DR 117 LYNN DR128 LYNN DR 301 LYNN DR CEDAR CEDAR 123 LYNN DR 760 MOUNTAIN DR MOUNTAIN DR 130 203 CEDAR 303 WARRIOR DR CEDAR SPANISH OAK RD MOUNTAIN DR LYNN DR MOUNTAIN DR 205106 125 305 SPANISH OAK RDSITLINGTONS CEDAR LYNN DR WARRIOR CENTER 136 HILL MOUNTAIN DR 207 CEDAR 110 131 210 Subdivision SPANISH OAK RD MOUNTAIN DR SITLINGTONS CEDAR SPANISH OAK RD 138 HILL MOUNTAIN DR 211 114 CEDAR 212 SPANISH MOUNTAIN DRSITLINGTONS 105 SPANISH OAK RD 135 HILL 142 OAK RDSITLINGTONS 640 213 CEDAR 215 CEDAR 113HILL 111 109 WARRIOR DR SPANISH MOUNTAIN DR SPANISH MOUNTAIN DR DEEP BOTTOM PL DEEP SITLINGTONS OAK RD 111 OAK RD BOTTOM PL HILL 640 146107 112 SITLINGTONS 221 WARRIOR DR CEDARDEEP DEEP HILL SPANISH120 101 640 141 227 MOUNTAIN DRBOTTOM PL BOTTOM PL OAK RD FREDERICKSBURG DR SHUMARD CT 640 WARRIOR DR CEDAR SPANISH 110122 223 216 231 WARRIOR DR MOUNTAIN DR OAK RD640 148 105 DEEPFREDERICKSBURG DR SPANISH SPANISH OAK RD SPANISH WARRIOR DR CEDAR DEEP 640BOTTOM PL OAK RD 147 OAK RD 218229 126 MOUNTAIN DR 640BOTTOM PL 106 640WARRIOR DR CEDAR SPANISH OAK RDSPANISH FREDERICKSBURG DR 101 WARRIOR DR 121 DEEP WARRIOR DR MOUNTAIN DR OAK RD 222 DEEP FREDERICKSBURG DR BOTTOM PL 228 SPANISH640 BOTTOM PL 152 102 SPANISH OAK RD OAK RD WARRIOR DR CEDAR DEEP 155 230 125 101 MOUNTAIN DR BOTTOM PL 107 132 BLACKBURNS SPANISH FREDERICKSBURG DR BRIDGEWATER DR SONOMA CT 158FREDERICKSBURG DR FORD 153 OAK RD 149 OLD DOMINION GREENS 127 CEDAR 106BLACKBURNS BLACKBURNS FREDERICKSBURG DR Subdivision MOUNTAIN DR FORD SONOMA CT 103 107 FORD 130 BRIDGEWATER DR BRIDGEWATER DR 105136 104 Application 145 141 BLACKBURNS 100 BRIDGEWATER DRBLACKBURNS 102 SONOMA CT BLACKBURNS BLACKBURNS FORD Parcels LADYSMITH DR FORD µ Sewer and Water Service Area B2 (General Business District) RP (Residential Performance District) Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 0200400800Feet Map Created: October 18, 2018 MACEDONIAMACEDONIAWAKELAND105408 DORNACH CT CRAIG DR 108 CHELTENHAM DR 1251 REZ # 04 - 18: Tasker Rd and Warrior Dr Commercial Property CH RD CH RDDR 1211 CHELTENHAM DR MACEDONIA 103 MACEDONIA 96 CH RD KEVERNE CT CH RD WAKELAND 107 WAKELAND1261 PINs: 75 - A - 104, 75 - A - 104E 104 101 KEVERNE CT DR MANOR MACEDONIA 105 1255 CHELTENHAM DR 1200 KEVERNE CT CH RD KEVERNE CT MACEDONIA Subdivision Rezoning from B2 and RP with Proffers to B2 and RP with Revised Proffers 101103 109 MACEDONIA 1226 CH RD CHELTENHAM DRWINTON LN CH RDKEVERNE CT 1244 MACEDONIA CH RD 102 Location Map MACEDONIA 100 CHELTENHAM DR 1232 1218 111 CH RD KEVERNE CT 1220 101 MACEDONIA MACEDONIA KEVERNE CT 102 MACEDONIA CH RDWINTON LN 1238 CH RD 1220 KEVERNE CT CH RD MACEDONIA MACEDONIA CH RD 1270 106 110 CH RD MACEDONIA KEVERNE CT 1286 KEVERNE CT 100 201 CH RD MACEDONIA 211 CROSS 108 106 1423 1314 CROSS CH RD CROSS KEYS PL KEVERNE CT CROSS MACEDONIA MACEDONIA KEYS PL KEYS PL KEYS PL104 CH RD CH RD 1320 106 110 QUEENS MACEDONIA MACEDONIA ACRES QUEENS 1275 CROSS KEYS PLWAY CH RD WAY Subdivision TASKER RD 105 208 108QUEENS WAY 1403 CROSS 110 QUEENS MACEDONIA KEYS PL QUEENS 110 WAY CH RD WAY SPANISH OAK RD 112 1340 109 QUEENS WAY MACEDONIA 1418 SPANISH MOSBY 1400 CH RD REZ #04-18 MACEDONIA 114 OAK RD STATION MACEDONIA CH RD QUEENS 111 Subdivision CH RD WAY 75 A 104 SPANISH 122 114 OAK RD 126 LUCY 115 124 SPANISH LUCY 115 LONG CT BAYBERRY CT LUCY 120 OAK RD LONG CT SPANISH LONG CT 110 BAYBERRY CT120 118 OAK RD BAYBERRY CT 128 LUCY LONG CT SPANISH OAK RD 122 LUCY 122102 114 BAYBERRY CT 119 LONG CT SPANISHBAYBERRY CT BAYBERRY CT 123 SPANISH 121 100 127 121 OAK RD LUCY LONG CT OAK RD BAYBERRY CT BAYBERRY CT LUCY LUCY LONG CT LONG CT 107 125 119 BAYBERRY CT LUCY LONG CT 127 LUCY LONG CT 200 SPANISH 115 LYNN DR 206 OAK RD BAYBERRY CT 100 LYNN DR 131202 SARVIS CT REZ #04-18 SPANISHLYNN DR 208 214 OAK RD LYNN DR 660 LYNN DR 220 135 75 A 104E WARRIOR DR LYNN DR 101 SPANISH SARVIS CT OAK RD 122 118 218 CEDAR CEDAR 228 LYNN DR 300224 MOUNTAIN DR MOUNTAIN DR LYNN DR 126 215 221 LYNN DRLYNN DR CEDAR 124 LYNN DR LYNN DR MOUNTAIN DR CEDAR 217 223 229 MOUNTAIN DR 117 LYNN DR128 LYNN DR 301 LYNN DR CEDAR CEDAR 123 LYNN DR 760 MOUNTAIN DR MOUNTAIN DR 130 203 CEDAR 303 WARRIOR DR CEDAR SPANISH OAK RD MOUNTAIN DR LYNN DR MOUNTAIN DR 205106 125 305 SPANISH OAK RDSITLINGTONS CEDAR LYNN DR WARRIOR CENTER 136 HILL MOUNTAIN DR 207 CEDAR 110 131 210 Subdivision SPANISH OAK RD MOUNTAIN DR SITLINGTONS CEDAR SPANISH OAK RD 138 HILL MOUNTAIN DR 211 114 CEDAR 212 SPANISH MOUNTAIN DRSITLINGTONS 105 SPANISH OAK RD 135 HILL 142 OAK RDSITLINGTONS 640 213 CEDAR 215 CEDAR 113HILL 111 109 WARRIOR DR SPANISH MOUNTAIN DR SPANISH MOUNTAIN DR DEEP BOTTOM PL DEEP SITLINGTONS OAK RD 111 OAK RD BOTTOM PL HILL 640 146107 112 SITLINGTONS 221 WARRIOR DR CEDARDEEP DEEP HILL SPANISH120 101 640 141 227 MOUNTAIN DRBOTTOM PL BOTTOM PL OAK RD FREDERICKSBURG DR SHUMARD CT 640 WARRIOR DR CEDAR SPANISH 110122 223 216 231 WARRIOR DR MOUNTAIN DR OAK RD640 148 105 DEEPFREDERICKSBURG DR SPANISH SPANISH OAK RD SPANISH WARRIOR DR CEDAR DEEP 640BOTTOM PL OAK RD 147 OAK RD 218229 126 MOUNTAIN DR 640BOTTOM PL 106 640WARRIOR DR CEDAR SPANISH OAK RDSPANISH FREDERICKSBURG DR 101 WARRIOR DR 121 DEEP WARRIOR DR MOUNTAIN DR OAK RD 222 DEEP FREDERICKSBURG DR BOTTOM PL 228 SPANISH640 BOTTOM PL 152 102 SPANISH OAK RD OAK RD WARRIOR DR CEDAR DEEP 155 230 125 101 MOUNTAIN DR BOTTOM PL 107 132 BLACKBURNS SPANISH FREDERICKSBURG DR BRIDGEWATER DR SONOMA CT 158FREDERICKSBURG DR FORD 153 OAK RD 149 OLD DOMINION GREENS 127 CEDAR 106BLACKBURNS BLACKBURNS FREDERICKSBURG DR Subdivision MOUNTAIN DR FORD SONOMA CT 103 107 FORD 130 BRIDGEWATER DR BRIDGEWATER DR 105136 104 145 141 BLACKBURNS 100 BRIDGEWATER DRBLACKBURNS 102 SONOMA CT BLACKBURNS BLACKBURNS FORD LADYSMITH DR FORD µ Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 0200400800Feet Map Created: October 18, 2018 11511175LAUREL214LAUREL DORNACH CTCRAIG DR CRAIG DR CRAIG DR 306 TASKER RD REZ # 04 - 18: Tasker Rd and Warrior Dr Commercial Property HILL DR HILL DR LAUREL MACEDONIA 107 1199 LAUREL 408 HILL DR CH RD CHELTENHAM DR MACEDONIA HILL DR 304 103 108CRAIG DR CH RD LAUREL HILL DR MOUNTAIN CHELTENHAM DR PINs: 75 - A - 104, 75 - A - 104E 103 103 WAKELAND ASH CT 109 12231251 CHELTENHAM DR KEVERNE CT 104 MANOR Rezoning from B2 and RP with Proffers to B2 and RP with Revised Proffers 105 MOUNTAIN MACEDONIA CH RDMACEDONIA 109 CHELTENHAM DR103 KEVERNE CT ASH CT CH RD Subdivision 1218 101 100 KEVERNE CT WINTON LN 107 Long Range Land Use Map 102 MACEDONIA CHELTENHAM DR 103 COTTONWOOD KEVERNE CT CHELTENHAM DR CH RD 1232 BUTTON BUSH AVE 111 102 AVEMACEDONIA 1244 KEVERNE CT 1220 105 KEVERNE CT 106 CH RD MACEDONIA MACEDONIA110 BUTTON BUSH 1270 KEVERNE CT CH RD CH RD KEVERNE CT AVE 110 MACEDONIA CH RD 109 BUTTON1314 108 207 104 102 BUTTON BUSH AVE MACEDONIA KEVERNE CT CROSS KEYS PL QUEENS WAY QUEENS BUSH AVE CH RD 110 107211 112 WAY 111 CROSS 1320 COTTONWOODCROSS1275 106 1403 BUTTON BUTTON KEYS PL MACEDONIA CH RD AVEKEYS PL TASKER RD QUEENS BUSH AVE110MACEDONIA BUSH AVE 116 208 WAY CH RD SPANISH 105 BUTTON 110 CROSS OAK RD 117 BUSH AVEQUEENS WAY 113 QUEENS WAY KEYS PL 108 MACEDONIA ACRES BUTTON COTTONWOOD 118 QUEENS WAY 1340 Subdivision BUSH AVE AVE BUTTON 112 MACEDONIA BUSH AVE 122 QUEENS WAY CH RD 109 121 REZ #04-18 1400 BUTTON 125 114 SPANISH BUTTON BUSH MACEDONIA BUSH AVE SADI CT QUEENS WAY 111OAK RD AVE CH RD 75 A 104 123 119 SPANISH OAK RD115126 123 114 BUTTON SADI CT BAYBERRY CTLUCY SADI CT 122 SPANISH BUSH AVE115 LONG CT 117 LUCY 110 OAK RD SPANISH 118 127 SADI CTLONG CT 128 BAYBERRY CT OAK RD SADI CT SLIPPERY LUCY LONG CT 113 100 114 ELM DR 124 116 119 123 SADI CT BAYBERRY CT BAYBERRY CT ELM DR SADI CT 126SPANISH OAK RD 127 121 LUCY LONG CT 124109 SLIPPERY LUCY BAYBERRY CT 104 SPANISH OAK RDBAYBERRY CT ELM DR107 LONG CT 125 107 SADI CT SADI CT 128 LUCY LONG CT 127 114 200 BAYBERRY CT 102 SPANISH SPANISH SUFFOLK 103115 LYNN DR SADI CT OAK RD OAK RD CIR SADI CTBAYBERRY CT 101202 131 102 REZ #04-18 SADI CTLYNN DR 208 112 Application SPANISH OAK RD SARVIS CT 214 LYNN DR SUFFOLK CIR 110 660 135 Parcels 75 A 104E LYNN DR SARVIS CT120 WARRIOR DR 114 SPANISH 101 218 Sewer and Water Service Area CEDAR 111 SARVIS CT OAK RD 224 SARVIS CT LYNN DR MOUNTAIN DR 118SARVIS CT Long Range Land Use LYNN DR 228 304 215 122 SARVIS CT 113 LYNN DR 128 Residential LYNN DR LYNN DR CEDAR 120 SARVIS CT CEDAR 217 MOUNTAIN DR 115 308 SARVIS CT Neighborhood Village MOUNTAIN DR 229 123 LYNN DR SARVIS CT LYNN DR 119 223 LYNN DR Urban Center 301CEDAR 130 760 SARVIS CT LYNN DR 128 314 MOUNTAIN DR LYNN DR CEDAR Mobile Home Community WARRIOR DR 203 SHUMARD CT LYNN DR MOUNTAIN DR SPANISH 307 204 Business 108 124 WARRIOR OAK RD 313 LYNN DR SPANISH SITLINGTONS SHUMARD CT Highway Commercial CENTER LYNN DR 138 OAK RD 129207 HILL 309112 120 131 Subdivision CEDAR Mixed-Use SHUMARD CTSPANISH OAK RD 212 LYNN DRSITLINGTONS SHUMARD CT CEDAR 112MOUNTAIN DR SPANISHHILL 125 MOUNTAIN DR Mixed Use Commercial/Office 211114 SHUMARD CT OAK RD 106 142 SHUMARD CT SPANISHSITLINGTONS 119111 Mixed Use Industrial/Office 111 640 SHUMARD CT CEDAR OAK RDHILL SHUMARD CTDEEP SITLINGTONS WARRIOR DR MOUNTAIN DR 104 Industrial BOTTOM PL HILL 115 217 431 SHUMARD CT 144 640112 Warehouse 107 SHUMARD CT 223 SPANISH ALBIN DR CEDAR WARRIOR DRDEEP BOTTOM PL 109 120 433DEEP BOTTOM PL OAK RDSPANISH Heavy Industrial MOUNTAIN DR SHUMARD CT640 110FREDERICKSBURG DR 101 ALBIN DR OAK RD105 231 148 WARRIOR DR640 DEEP Extractive Mining SHUMARD CT 432 DEEP BOTTOM PL 107 147 SPANISH CEDAR WARRIOR DRBOTTOM PL 216 640 124 ALBIN DR CABERNET CT Commercial Rec OAK RDCEDAR MOUNTAIN DR 229 SPANISH OAK RD WARRIOR DR 640 222 FREDERICKSBURG DR 640 106 430MOUNTAIN DR Rural Community Center SPANISH OAK RD WARRIOR DR SPANISH WARRIOR DR123 DEEP 105 ALBIN DR 106640 155 101 OAK RD152 228FREDERICKSBURG DR BOTTOM PL Fire & Rescue 102 CABERNET CT CABERNET CTWARRIOR DR BLACKBURNS 105 DEEP CEDAR SPANISH OAK RD DEEP 103 Sensitive Natural Areas FORD SONOMA CT BOTTOM PL MOUNTAIN DR 107 103 230 BOTTOM PL CABERNET CT 153 103 SONOMA CT Institutional BRIDGEWATER DR SPANISH OAK RD 158 BLACKBURNS 111SONOMA CT 132 149 102 107 Planned Unit Development CEDARFORD CHARDONNAY DR104 BLACKBURNS BLACKBURNS CABERNET CT BRIDGEWATER DR MOUNTAIN DR 143 SONOMA CTFORD Park 100 FORD 100 BLACKBURNS LADYSMITH DR 137 Recreation CABERNET CT 114100 FORD 111 101 BLACKBURNS 139 CHARDONNAY DRSONOMA CT BRIDGEWATER DR School 133 SONOMA CT 104 FORD 101 116 BLACKBURNS 217 BLACKBURNS LADYSMITH DR Employment LADYSMITH DR CHARDONNAY DR129 FORD BRIDGEWATER DR FORD 135 CHARDONNAY DR 118 221 Airport Support Area 108 126 BLACKBURNS 108 CHARDONNAY DR BRIDGEWATER DR BRIDGEWATER DR CHARDONNAY DRFORD LADYSMITH DR112 B2 / B3 105 120 225 BRIDGEWATER DR 102 LADYSMITH DR 109 128 100 CHARDONNAY DR Residential, 4 u/a 353229 BRIDGEWATER DR 216 105 HUME CT REEDVILLE CT CHARDONNAY DR HUME CT MONTGOMERY CIRBRIDGEWATER DR 359 BRIDGEWATER DR UPPERVILLE DR High-Density Residential, 6 u/a 104 106 MONTGOMERY 231 107 HUME CT REEDVILLE CT 105 222 High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a CIR BRIDGEWATER DR 363 UPPERVILLE DR REEDVILLE CT 105BRIDGEWATER DR 104 Rural Area 113 525 MONTGOMERY 354 230 109 HUME CT 103 UPPERVILLE DR224 119228 108 LADYSMITH DR CIRLINE DR MONTGOMERY BRIDGEWATER DR UPPERVILLE DR Interstate Buffer HUME CT BRIDGEWATER DR µ Landfill Support Area Natural Resources & Recreation Environmental & Recreational Resources Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 0245490980Feet Map Created: October 18, 2018 ORDINANCE Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: December 5, 2018 Public Hearing Held, Postponed January 16, 2019 Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 13, 2019 Pending AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #04-18 TASKER ROAD & WARRIOR DRIVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WHEREASREZONING #04-18 Tasker Road & Warrior Drive Commercial Properties, , was submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to rezone 20.24± acres from the B2 (General Business) District with proffers to the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers and 0.62± of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP (Residential Performance) District with revised proffers with a final revision date of January 18, 2019. The subject properties are located in the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive. The properties are located in the Opequon Magisterial District and are identified by Property Identification Nos. 75-A-104 and 75-A-104E; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 5, 2018 and postponed the application and; the Planning Commission then held a public meeting on this rezoning on January 16, 20199 and recommended denial; and WHEREAS , the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on February 13, 2019; 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 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 rezone 20.24± acres from the B2 (General Business) District with proffers to the B2 (General Business) District with revised proffers and 0.62± of land zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers to the RP (Residential Performance) District with revised proffers with a final revision date of January 18, 2019. The conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the Applicant and the Property Owner are attached. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 13 day of February 2019 by the following th recorded vote: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Gary A. Lofton J. Douglas McCarthy Robert W. Wells Shannon G. Trout Judith McCann-Slaughter A COPY ATTEST Blaine P. Dunn _________________________________ PDRes. #02-19 Kris C. Tierney, Frederick County Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director DATE: February 1, 2019 RE:Discussion: 2019-2024 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is a document that consists of a schedule of major capital expenditures for the County for the ensuing five-year period, as well as, a category for long term projects (6 + years out). The CIP is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the County budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the County must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. When the CIP is adopted, it becomes a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of projects on the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be undertaking these projects. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities and cost estimates may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. The CIP is also updated annually, and projects are removed from the plans as they are completed or as priorities change. CIP Components The CIP provides project recommendations from various County Agencies and tables that outline the projects and cost estimates for the projects. Within the tables, columns for each year show the funding needs that would be requested in the corresponding budget cycle. In addition, those projects that are long range projects have been placed at the end of the CIP table, outside of the five-year window. The CIP includes three separate tables; the first table shows County funded projects and the second and third tables cover Transportation projects and Airport projects which are primarily funded through other sources. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2019-2024 CIP February 1, 2019 Page 2 The CIP includes a total of 79 projects, including several new projects. Projects within the CIP are for: Schools, Parks and Recreation, Regional Library, County Administration, Fire and Rescue, Transportation and Winchester Regional Airport. Background Discussions On December 10, 2018, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) discussed the 2019-2024 CIP capital improvement project requests. The role of the CPPC in the CIP process was to ensure that the various departmental project requests are in conformance with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Following the CPPC discussion, the Committee endorsed the Comprehensive Plan. The CPPC forwarded the CIP to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed the CIP at their meeting on January 16, 2019. The Planning Commission confirmed that the CIP is in conformance with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the plan. Conclusion Staff is seeking a decision from the Board of Supervisors as to whether the 2018-2023 CIP is ready to be scheduled for public hearing. Please find attached the Draft 2019-2024 CIP with applicable text, tables and maps. More detailed information regarding the individual department requests is available digitally and may be forwarded to you directly if requested. The information provided by the www.fcva.us/plans. If adopted, the CIP and included maps will become a component of the Comprehensive 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 Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. CEP/pd Attachment