CPPC 06-10-02 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Directorell�
RE: June Meeting and Agenda
DATE: June 3, 2002
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
.=sFi�nF„Y'SSE.:�- ,r_ .��.” x' :veil:SViili:YviTL�lY1'Y�IR"��.,.J"uaa.o .z...........
- Enc�53�A.,„MA�euwrnxyx¢MMu�v. .,�wa+*'vu:,V,-czr,..,�.:
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting
on Monday, June 10, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the County
Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the
following agenda items:
AGENDA
1) Bylaws
2) Continuation of Discussion: Special Strategy Corridors
3) Other.
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting.
Thank you.
Staff has been directed to advise all committee members that access to the County Administration
Building for night meetings that do not occur in the Board room will be limited to the back door
of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members to park in the county parking lot
located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the
sidewalk to the back door of the four-story wing.
U.- 1COMMITTEESTPMAgendms 2002 AgendasUune 10, 2002.wpd
File Copy
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
1TE; 1#1
DISCUSSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS & PROGRAMS
SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) BYLAWS
At the May 15, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Marie Straub voiced a concern
that the subcommittees did not have bylaws to govern how they make decisions and how their
meetings are conducted. Her recommendation for bylaws for subcommittees was endorsed by the
rest of the Planning Commission. Included is a draft of the bylaws for the Comprehensive Plans &
Programs Subcommittee (CPPS).
ARTICLE I -AUTHORIZATION
1-1 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee is established by
and in conformance with the bylaws of the Frederick County Planning Commission,
(adopted January 2, 2002), Article V -Committees,
1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee
hereinafter referred to as the "CPPS."
ARTICLE II -PURPOSE
2-1 The primary purpose of the CPPS is to work closely with the Frederick County Planning
Staff and to carry out all duties and functions described herein. In each instance, the CPPS
forwards recommendations or proposed updates to the Planning Commission who in turn
forwards recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition.
2-1-1 Preparation of the annual update of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan with
staff.
2-1-2 Review and prioritization of the Frederick County Capital Improvement Plan, which
is assembled by staff, based on information submitted by various County departments
and agencies.
2-1-3 Review the requests for adjustments in the location of the County's Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA) boundaries.
2-1-4 Undertake special projects such as preparation of policy of land use plans for specific
-2-
geographic areas.
ARTICLE III -MEMBERSHIP
3-1 The membership of the CPPS shall be determined by appointment of the Frederick County
Planning Commission Chairman as specified in the bylaws of the Planning Commission.
3-1-1 The Planning Commission Chairman may request recommendations on CPPS
membership from the Commission or subcommittee members on subcommittee
appointments.
3-1-2 Members of the CPPS subcommittee may be Planning Commission members,
employees of the County, or citizen volunteers.
3-1-3 The Chairman and the Vice -Chairman ofthe Planning Commission shall be ex -officio
members of the CPPS subcommittee.
ARTICLE IV -OFFICERS
4-1 Officers of the CPPS shall consist of a chairman and vice-chairman. The chairmanship and
vice -chairmanship is determined by a majority vote of the subcommittee membership.
4-2 Selection
4-2-1 The chairman and vice-chairman shall be elected by the voting members of the
CPPS.
4-2-2 Nomination of chairman and vice-chairman shall be made from the floor at the
first meeting of the calendar year. Elections shall follow immediately. A
candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be
declared elected.
4-3 Duties
4-3-1 The Chairman shall:
4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings.
4-3-1-2 Report official communications.
4-3-1-3 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Planning Director.
4-3-1-4 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the
Commission.
-3-
4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall:
4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the
chairman to act.
4-3-2-2 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the
Commission Chairman.
4-3-3 The Planning Department shall:
4-3-3-1 Notify members of all meetings.
4-3-3-2 Prepare agendas for all meetings.
4-3-3-3 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings.
4-3-3-4 Maintain files of all official CPPS records and reports. Official records and
reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes.
4-3-3-5 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings.
4-3-3-6 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the
Commission.
4-3-3-7 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and
functions of the Commission.
4-4 Term of Office
4-4-1 CPPS members may serve consecutive terms, but are subject to annual
reappointment.
4-4-2 Chairmanship of the CPPS is a one-year term.
4-4-3 Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the CPPS. In
such cases, the newly appointed member shall serve only until the end of the calendar
year, subject to annual reappointment.
ARTICLE V - MEETINGS
5-1 Regular meetings shall be held the 2nd Monday of each month.
5-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman after due notice and publication by the staff.
5-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the Planning Department staff with an agenda at least
-4-
five days before the meeting.
5-4 All meetings of the CPPS shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in
accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended.
ARTICLE VI - VOTING
6-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion
made unless a quorum is present.
6-2 No action of the CPPS shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and
voting.
ARTICLE VII - OPERATING RULES
7-1 Order of Business
7-1-1 Call to Order
7-1-2 Consideration of Minutes
7-1-3 Committee Reports
7-1-4 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda
7-1-6 Public Meetings
7-1-7 Discussions
7-1-8 Other
7-1-9 Adjournment
7-2 Minutes
7-2-1 The CPPS shall keep minutes of each meeting. The Chairman shall sign all summaries
following approval by the CPPS certifying that the summaries are true and correct.
Summaries made available to the public prior to formal approval by the CPPS shall
be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting.
7-3 Procedures
-5-
7-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's
Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures.
7-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Planning Commission,
the CPPS shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made.
If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made
concerning the item under consideration.
7-3-3 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures:
7-3-3-1 Report by County Staff
7-3-3-2 Presentation by Applicant
7-3-3-3 Citizen Comment
7-3-3-4 Rebuttal by Applicant
7-3-3-5 Discussion by CPPS
7-3-3-6 Motion and Action by CPPS
7-3-4 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the Chairman may
allow public comment.
7-3-5 The CPPS members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff
report, applicant presentation and citizen comment.
7-3-6 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting maybe made
part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the CPPS and are to be kept on
file by the Planning Department. Such items need not be made part of the published
minutes.
7-3-8 Tabling
7-3-8-1 The CPPS shall have the authority to table agenda items if any one of the
following situations occurs:
A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
on
Frederick County.
C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item.
D) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda
item warrant additional information or study.
E) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department
with a written request to table the agenda item.
F) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an
emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant.
G) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application
has been advertised to appear.
7-3-8-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from
a scheduled CPPS meeting one time. The CPPS shall table the application for
a specific period of time.
7-3-8-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be
readvertised for consideration by the CPPS once the following steps have been
completed:
A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be
considered by the CPPS.
B) The applicant has provided all required information to the Frederick
County Planning Department which addresses all concerns of the
CPPS.
7-3-8-4 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to act on an agenda item
that has been tabled one time when the agenda item has been readvertised for
a subsequent CPPS agenda.
7-3-9 Work sessions
7-3-9-1 The CPPS may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these
bylaws shall not apply.
7-3-9-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adj ournment of regular meetings or at the
time and place set by the CPPS.
7-3-9-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the CPPS at least five days before the
-7-
session.
7-3-9-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and
discussion.
7-3-9-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session.
7-3-9-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at
a work session.
7-3-9-7 A general record of all work sessions and the items discussed shall be kept.
7-3-10 Adjournment
7-3-10-1 In no case shall the CPPS consider any new items after 9:30 P.M. and in all
cases the CPPS shall adjourn by 10:00 P.M.
ARTICLE VIII - AMENDMENTS
8-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership
after thirty days prior notice.
8-2 The CPPS shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws to ensure their accuracy.
All amendments to these bylaws shall be considered by the CPPS in November of
each calendar year. The CPPS shall adopt their bylaws during the first meeting of
each calendar year.
ITEM #2
DISCUSSION: SPECIAL STRATEGY CORRIDORS
One of the issues raised at the Planning Commissioner's Retreat in March concerned the
appearance of various corridors in our community. It was discussed that these corridors serve as
gateways to our community, and should reflect positively on our community. Those benefitting
from this positive corridor appearance would not only be our residents, but also the traveling
public. It was suggested that the County's planning and development tools be evaluated and
improved to strengthen the various corridors' appearance and function.
During initial discussions at the CPPS meeting on April 8, 2002, the CPPS indicated a number of
special strategy corridors for consideration that might include: Route 50 (East and West); Route
522 (North and South), Route 7; Route 277; Route 11 (North and South); Tasker Road; and
Interstate 81. It is envisioned that once the corridors, or segments of corridors are identified, it
may be appropriate to develop goals and implementation strategies for improving the corridors'
appearances. Ultimately, this effort would be proposed for inclusion in the County's
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
For the June meeting the Report of the Corridor Appearance Task Force which was done by the
Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce in January of 1993 will be presented. This
report describes some of requirements that could be used to improve the appearance of the
county's corridors through changes in signs, landscaping, utility lines, lighting, buildings and
circulation. Also, the previous discussions from 1997 on proposed Corridor Appearance and
Development Design Standards from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
meetings will be discussed.
Staff will present additional information about methods utilized by Loudoun County for their
corridor standards, and also lead discussions on the project.
RE
rte -
t
Corridor Appearance
Task Force
JANUARY, 1990
Winchester -Frederick County Chamber of Commerce
1360 S. Pleasant Valley Road
Wmchester, Virginia =601
Cn=idoz Appeamnce Task Force
ORGXNEIZATION
- .. } _ _.tis
' JRR -• •::yw
Caxi Rkike
Patton, Harris, Rust and Asscdates
jure Wilmot
Economic Development Commission
Paas Tnroc=ortcn
Apple Travel and Tours
Cars' Longwbea=
Public Works
C.lIty of Winchester
Chuck Anna
Potomac Ediscnn
Greg Ha7. ear
MLenandoah's Pride
Pat Brasher
Delco Development Company
Ron Lilly
Planning Department
Fredenck County
Sally Penfield
Sally Crisman Interiors
P5a Cmndell
Northwestern Worishop
Dcuuglas R. Toan
Tran & Asscaates
Matt Mr -Hale
Colony Realty
Sally Wolfa
T� shoc ay Companizs
r� Spangler
Masco= Systems
Bill Saendow
Executive Dir' r
Ober of Commerce
Mck Oum
Winchester Medical Center
Timothy Youmans
Planning Director
City of Winchester
ACXNZGW=GNL NTS
The Corridor Appearance Task Force gratefuily acknowledges the support of those Chamber
of Co=erce volunteers whose names appear above. The Task Force also Lxpresses its apprecia-
tion to the following oroganizations: Media Services Department of the Winchester Nfedical Center,
Frederick County Planning Department, City of Winchester r-brming Department
and
Publication Sponsor, BRGVA1 INC-rF�,IS, INC
Report
of the
Corridor Appearance Task Force
BACKGROUND
In the winter of ISM. the Conservation of i�Tatural Resources Comar3ttee of the Winchester.
Frederick County Chamber of Cor nznerce was asked by the Economic Development Commission
to consider taking on the project of producing a report, the purpose of which would be to improve
the appearance of roadway corridors Imcling into the community. After some discussion, the
Conservation of Natrsai Resources Coaraziit- dete =deed that the appearance of community
corridors was a business-related issue of importance. The committee reasoned that the decision of
businesses, shoppers and tourists to come to Wiznchester-Frederica County is dirwtly influenced
by the appearance of its roadway corridors. T'rzis being the case, the Conservation of Naf=al
Resources Coatmitt� agreed to take the lead for the C2 =]:#— in addressing the ire.
In Thr of 1992, an ad hoc committee, The Corridor Apps=nce Task Forte, was formed
fnrthe purpose of developing a reccmanendation as to how the a=eara-Um cfWatchester Frederick
Count's roadway co=lors =ug;nt be improved. Those asked to se: ve on the committee consisted
not only of volunteers from the Conserrvafior. of Nat :ral. Rasources Cnmm;ttee, but also
turves from business and government who would bring spedai areas of arcerdse to the c0madt
te- The Con=ueaels East mewing was held on Mionday, March 25th. - Committee met every
month since then and approved the report on January 18, 1993.
P RFQSE
The purpose of the Corridor Appearance Task Force is to produce a viable recomareAndation
for the Crit' of Winc;.iwter and County of Frederick which. if adopted, would serve to significantly
�i7arrce, over the long tear, the appearance of roadway corridors leading into the cortummity.
APPRCAC E
The Corridor Appearance Task Force determined that the task of producing a recommenda-
tion as to how to improve the appearance of corridors Ieading into the community could best be
accomplished by developing a model of what an attractive roadway corridor should look like
Cnce a model was developed, it could then be used as a source of comparison in e.mmining
existing corridors. This comparison would serve to focus the attention of Ionil Citizens and officials
on those factors that contribute to the unsightly appearance of e.�dsting community corridors and
what was needed to improve their appearance.
•1• a rnr - •r - �s � �•. • __�. _rci - • . - a •. r •r r.
- w•
- �r•r e1. r • - ► . • r . sr •1 w � rs _. s.: • •a r r - _ • -
1 �! ' t !a• M•l •l•. 1
t
is rt - ■ • - •r.. • .•F - 't ••r t • - iE t - •) �' •r 1 ■ • ■
re
•� r � E zR.
Ir _
SpedEc Recon=endations
SIGNAGE
Tnz ftomme CQn,mecial signage is a leading contributing factor to a corridor's appearance.
Along some stretches of the roadway corridors leading into our community, signage dominates
the hc=an. The problems asscdated with signage are muitffacated. They include:
Size — Signs are ofbm:times too large, too tall or both. They are E-E�y out of propor-
tion to the building which houses the business they promote, wive sIgn size can
dominate the landscape and obscure the community's characti
Clutter — In many instances there are too many signs, too dose together, along our,
roadway corridors. The result is not only v=al clutter, but confusion on the part of
the motorist.
Design — Signs along roadway corridors lack quality of design. They frequently have
no relationship to the busizmnss they promote. Their facades are often =q=fessiortal
and temporary.
MiIntanance — Corridor simge is oftentimes in varying stages of disrepair and signs
reatain long after the bus—in,--s has departed. This tends to reffect an uncaring attitude
on the part of the cc==`= L7.
Th= F.emm=Rndatio= The Cozador Appeazzani.—a Task Farce believes the following sign star,
dards are necessary to bring our roadway co rdom into cenfo=it7 with what a model roadway
corridor should loots Ifice.
Sate — The height and overall squame footage of freee-standsng signs along a model road-
way =idor should be in proportion to the horizon and those buildings housing the
business for which the signs are designed to advertise. Signs which dominatathe skyline
should not be permitted along designated roadway corridors. With the exception of
signs for shopping c"U"' of five or more businesses and businesses ia�me-iiate?v ad�a
Cent to intestate highways, no sign along designated roadway corridors should be more
than 25 feet in height (20 feet is prefezed)1 and should not exceed isquare feet in
overall size. In addition, buiidin? mounted signs should be no larger than one square
foot for each linear foot cibuilding frontage. Variances shall be considered by appmpri_
ate: govern wantal body on a case by ase basis. In no instance shall a size variance be
granted if the sign is de—erred out of proportion to either the lot size or the building
housing the business being advertised. -
Clutter — The number of free-standing signs per property= and their proximity to one
another needs to be restricted. Along roadway corridors leading in to the community,
the-. : a should be no more than one free-standing sign per building, per corridor, with a
minimum of 100 feet spacing between signs.
= rn a study prepared in 1984 for the :American Planning Association entified Sign Regulat=ion, planners Eric
KeiIy and Cary Rzsc determined 0 feet to be the most effective and attractive height for roadwav sins_
For tete purposes of titi_s reporr, propemr shall me -3n those properties along roadway corridors which are
either zoned commercially or intended for commercial � in accordance with the adopted land use pians.
3
Design — Design concepts for both freestanding and building -mounted signs should be
a part of the overall design concept of commardni. properties located along roadway
corridors. Nddnnment-type is a preferred design for free-standing signs. but should not
be required as such a rzstrietion would stymie fibiiiiy of design. Building mounted
signs should coacpiement the archite=zla of the building Permanent flashing signs and
additional billboards along roadway corridors should be prohibited. Temporary signs
should be allowed by permit only and Hien only for a specified period of time.
Nfzdntenanca — All signs including those constructed by government should be main -
tamed so as to present a neat and orderly appearance. The owner or leasee of a property
should be required to remove signs when the business they advertise is no longer in
operation.
Mon-C=fo='i=g Sig= — E=t=3 signs in roadway corridors ere� in accordanno`
with applicable n-,ulati= at the time of their are -cion but not in conformity with model
roadway corridor requirements enumerated above, shall be "grandfathered" so long as
the business continues to operate. Businesses are e=uraged to tal,,. the initiative in
Pliminatin0 non-conformutg signs along roadway corridors and local gove*nment is
encouraged to consider a tax coedit for those businesses which take such an initiative.
LANDSCAPING
Tawe Pmblzax Commensal roadway c=*dors leadinz into the community give th_ appearanco
of urban deserts with vast ex=mr=s of paveine—rm In thosa ares in: ii ont of businesses and along
median strips where vegetation does ezast, it is often unkempt or st—azile in appearance.
The.Reconunendation: Landscaping along a roadway corridor is a most effactive wary of pro
Jesting a positive community image. A combination of establishing standards and innovative ini-
tiatives can best accomplish the landscaping necessary to improve the appearance of our
community's roadway corridors. These standards and initiatives are contained in the following
recnmacenciations.
(I) E fisting vegetation should be protected and attractively maintained by owners of
property abutting designated roadway corridors.
(Z) When not deemed to be a safety factor, the planting of trees should be encouraged
along designated roadway corridors.
(3) A landscape design should be a part of the permitting process for any new business
and/or new construction along a designated roadway corridor. _
(4) Natural borders, either level or bermed, should be required in the front of parking
lots that adjoin designated roadway corridors and encouraged around buildings that
e st along such corridors.
(S) Those local and state governing bodies with the responsibility of maintaining road-
way corridors need to be made aware of the special importance of the appearance
of vegetation in such areas and alerted when lack of maintenance re2ecs unfavor-
ably upon the community.
(6) Whenever possible, Iocal and state government should cooperate with the local
Chamber of Cornmerce in a Gateway Appearance Program designed to solict the
4
support of lorai landscaping firms in the maintenance and enhancement of corridor
medians in return for publicity and rxogruticrL
(7) Those goveming bad?es responsible for the maintzzaance should investigate alterna
fives to grss along roadway Corridor such as provided for by the Department of
Transportation in the Virginia Wildflower Program, a program which allows for the
sowing of wildflower seeds along Virginia's roadsides.
(S) Those responsible for the maintenance of roadway corridors should investigate the
availability of grants which have been used in other c=ummities to improve the
appeamnra of roadway corndor.
The Problem Overhead utility lines and pales contribute significantly to th.e cluttered appear-
ance of roadway corridor;.
The Recommendation: Develop a Zo yeaz plan, the goal of which is to place all new and edsting
Utility lines along roadway corridors und9rraround, or to minimize their visibility through a prc-
;raui of relocation and/or scree -'tiny In addition, include in the plan the goal of replacing over—
head wire supports for trmEc sisals along roadway corridor with mastarms.
LIGHTING
The Fmblmm I.ig*tting is e en:ely important to the overall appearance of roadway corridors.
If the lighting is either Lnsuffldent or too harsh, the result is aro um: avorable appearance c�.ilariy,
burned out and fiic.�-ing bulbs or tubes reflect an uncaring and, them ore, detrimental impression
of the con==nity.
Fixtures for the light source can also detract from the overall appearance if, because of size or
design, they fail to complement the roadscope and character' of the Community.
The Recommendation: Lighting along roadway corridors should be of adequate intensity so as
to promote safety and provide an attractive nighttime vista for motorists. Lighting should be
arranged as to reduce glare- The lighting fixture should be of a size and design that enhances, not
detract, from the overall aDpearance of roadway corridor. In no case should the light fixture
ecceed 3a feet in height. All lighting connections should be underground. Property owners and
highway maintenance divisions should be encouraged to replace inappropriate and inoperable
lights, light fixtures, poles and bases.
BUILDINGS
The Problem: Poor building designs often detract from the appearance of roadway corridors. All
too often commercial areas have been developed without any consideration of architectural style
or size in relation to their surroundings. Mme building facades have been allowed to deteriorate
to the point that they are noticeably unattended and unattractive -
5
The Recomn-endadan: 5randards need to be set for buildings along roadway corridors The
architecture of newly-consiicted buildings along roadway corridors should be reviewed so as to
insure their architecture and size coaxpiement the roadscape and the co=mmit/,s character. Tice
facades of ensting commercial buildings along roadway corridors should be mamt =ed. When
there is a change of ownership, use or a major building modification, consideration should be
given to requiring changes that enhance the btdiding's attractivesteesss andiernent the a
an of the rcadscape. coanp ppear-
C RCUL,AITON
TheFmble= Access to and • • • roadwaycorridors: is • ■cyi • _ t •
with littie or= consid-
emion given to either safety or convenience. 4g;4WOre x-of�da:-,,o-ji
the locatic
rr�
• T 1 M=A • 1
She Rerammendadorr Closer scrutiny of the functional and aesthetic aspects of dre li don needs
to be undertaken during the site planning process. l'a order to provide safe and efficient travel
along roadway corridors, minimufa, sparing of L90 fent should be required between acoessways.
No new lot she uld be created along a roadway corridor unless spacing requirements are met or
accts is provided through shared or casting access. Driveways with entrances on roadway cor-
ridors which do not meet spacing should be allowed only when there is no reason-
able aIte=ative which ntesfs the spacing requirements. Driveways should be well denned and not
less than twenty four (24) feet in width for two-way traffic and twelve W) feet in width for one-
way traiac
CONCLUSION
The Corridor Appearance Task Force recognizes that inmple=end zg the recommendations in
this report will not be easy. Some of the recmnmendatk= will take considerable time and expense.
However, because the attractive appearance of our roadway corridors is so vital to the continued
development of our community, the Corridor Appearance Task Force encourages the prompt
Consideration by local authorities of a Roadway Corridor Plan which would detail how the rec.
ommendations contained in this report are to be implemented. The Corridor Appearance Task
Force encourages the business commnntity, to support this effort and to work cooperatively with
local gove-m=ent offzdaI towards malting the roadway corridors Ieading into our All America
Community a source of pride for the residents of Winchester -Frederick County
Date Approved .
0
R G. Wdlia=, Chairman
Corridor Appearance Task Force
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
(NET CHANGE)
1) Section 155-23F(4) Retail Petroleum Pump Setbacks:
Current Requirements: 20 feet from right-of-way
Proposed Requirements: 22 feet from parking lot setback
Net Change: 32' maximum (refer to comments)
Will depend on the parking lot setback distance. The developer can use a 30' parking lot setback,
a 20' parking lot setback, or a reduced parking lot setback if a waiver is granted by the Planning
Commission. It should also be noted that the new VDOT standard for petroleum pump setbacks
is 30' from the right-of-way for islands that are perpendicular to the road and 12' for those that
are parallel.
2) Section 165-27(4) (a) Parking Lot Raised Islands:
Current Requirements: 9 feet in width; installed at ends of all parking rows; landscaped
with grass
Proposed Requirements: 9 feet in width; installed at ends of all parking rows; landscaped
with minimum of one shade tree - 2" caliper
Net Change: 1 shade tree - 2" caliper (refer to comment)
Flexibility has been added to this subsection to provide the Zoning Administrator with authority
to reduce the width of a raised island by 3 feet if site conditions are restrictive.
1
3) Section 165-27(4)(b) Parlking Lot Interior Landscaping:
Current Requirements: 5 % of the parking lot interior to be in raised islands with shade
trees
Proposed Requirements: 1 raised island for every 120 linear feet of parking row length with
1 shade tree - 2" caliper
Net Change: Variable increase in landscape percentage based on lot size and
number of parking spaces (examples provided); 2" caliper shade
tree size
Project Name Lot Size Current % Proposed %
Taco Bell 0.84 acres 5% (671 sq. ft.) 7% (1031 sq.ft.)
Sheetz (Rt.7) 2.04 acres 5% (1189 sq. ft.) 6% (1440 sq. ft. )
Costco (Price Club) 13.0 acres 5% (10,035 sq. ft.) 8% (16,148 sq. ft. )
4) Section 165-27(4) (c) Parking Lot Perpendicular Raised Islands:
Current Requirements: None
Proposed Requirements: 15 feet in width; pedestrian walkway in middle; landscaped with
shade trees @ 2" caliper
Note: New Standard for Shopping Center Parking Lots Only
(refer to diagram on page 5 of the Proposed Amendments text)
2
5) Section 165-27(5) Parking Lot Setbacks:
Current Requirements: 5 feet from right-of-way and adjoining properties
Proposed Requirements: 30 feet maximum from right-of-way and 5 feet from adjoining
properties
Net Change: 25' maximum from right-of-way (refer to comments)
Will depend on the parking lot setback distance. The developer can use a 30' parking lot setback,
a 20' parking lot setback, or a reduced parking lot setback if a waiver is granted by the Planning
Commission.
6) Section 165-27(6)(a)& Section 165-27(6) (b) Parking Lot Screening from Roads:
Current Requirements: 3 foot high evergreen, wall, or fence screen
Proposed Requirements: 3 foot high earth berm with shrub plantings that are 4 feet off center
along the entire distance of the berm
Net Change: depending on method used under current requirements, the
proposed requirements could require additional landscaping
7) Section 165-27(6) (d) Parking Lot Screening from Adjoining Properties:
Current Requirements: 3 foot high evergreen hedge, fence, berm, or wall
Proposed Requirements: provision made to also include evergreen shrub plantings that are 24
inches (3 gallon bucket) at time of planting that are 4 feet off center
Net Change: none
3
8) Section 165-27(6) (e) Street Trees:
Current Requirements: None
Proposed Requirements: 1 tree per 40 linear feet of road frontage @ 2" caliper
Note: New Standard for Frontage Along Arterial and Major Collector
Roads Only
9) Section 165-27(9) Aisle Requirements:
Net Change: Eliminates 30 degree parking stall provision
10) Section 165-27(10) Obstructions and Structures:
Current Requirements: 3 foot minimum separation from parking lot curb for all structures
Proposed Requirements: provision for 2 foot separation, provided that structure is protected
by bollards, concrete piers, or similar features
Net Change: Eliminates 30 degree parking stall provision
11) Section 165-27(11) Drive Through Lanes:
Current Requirements: sufficient drive-in length for 5 automobiles at each drive-in window
Proposed Requirements: 90 feet of length at each drive through window
Net Change: None, standard clarifies previous requirement
H
12) Section 165-27(12) (b) Pedestrian Access:
Current Requirements: none; however, Subdivision Ordinance requires sidewalks along
both sides of all collector and arterial roads
Proposed Requirements: sidewalks along arterial and major collector road frontages
Net Change: new standard for Zoning Ordinance
13) Section 165-27(12) (c) Pedestrian Access:
Current Requirements: none
Proposed Requirements: concrete wheel stops or bollards to prevent vehicle overhang, unless
sidewalks are 6 feet or more in width
Net Change: new standard for Zoning Ordinance
14) Section 165-29A(2)(a) Motor Vehicle Access - Spacing Requirements:
Current Requirements: 150 feet of distance @ 35 mph or less; 200 feet of distance if
greater than 35 mph
Proposed Requirements: 200 feet of distance @ 35 mph or less; 250 feet of distance if
greater than 35 mph
Net Change: 50 feet additional distance between new entrances along arterial and
major collector roads (refer to comments)
The majority of the corridors within the county in which this standard will apply have speed limits
between 45 mph and 55 mph. At 45 mph, a car travels at 66 feet/second, while at 60 mph, a car
travels at 88 feettsecond. The current spacing requirements on corridors within the county allows
vehicles to pass between two entrances in less than 3 seconds.
5
15) Section 165-29A(2)(b) Motor Vehicle Access - Spacing Requirements:
Current Requirements: 70 foot spacing between entrances on minor collector roads;
70 foot spacing between entrances and intersections with minor
collector roads;
150 foot spacing between business and industrial entrances and
intersections with major collector roads
Proposed Requirements: 70 foot spacing between ' entrances on minor collector roads and
local streets;
150 foot spacing between entrances and intersections of arterial
roads or major collector roads
Net Change: provides a minimum entrance spacing from local streets and
provides a minimum entrance spacing for properties that intersect
arterial roads
16) Section 165-29C Inter -Parcel Connectors:
Current Requirements: None
Proposed Requirements: Inter -parcel access between all adjoining commercial properties
which front along arterial and major collector roads
Note: New standard for commercial properties only. Requirement
intended to assist in maintaining level of service for road systems by
allowing access between sites without entering onto arterial and
major collector roads. Flexibility has been provided by allowing
the Planning Commission to waive the requirement if topography
or environmental constraints exist.
Ci
17) Section 165-30A Prohibited Signs:
Current Requirements: animated or flashing signs, and signs painted directly onto buildings
are prohibited
Proposed Requirements: inflatable signs, roof signs, and portable signs would be added to
the list of signs that would be prohibited
Net Change: as described in Proposed Requirements
18) Section 165-30CM Off -Premise Business and Directional Signs:
Current Requirements: not permitted in the RP, R4, R5, and MM Districts
Proposed Requirements: HE District and Historic Overlay District would be added to
districts in which off -premise business and directional signs are
prohibited
Net Change: as described in Proposed Requirements
19) Section 165-30G Business Sign Size and Height:
Current Requirements: 150 sq. ft. and 35 feet in height
Proposed Requirements: 75 sq. ft. and 25 feet in height
Net Change: 75 sq. ft. size reduction and 10 feet reduction in height (refer to
comments)
Incentives have been given to utilize monument signs by allowing them to be up to 100 sq. ft. in
size. Provisions have also been made to allow business signs for shopping centers to be 100 sq. ft.
in size or 150 sq. ft. in size if monument signs are utilized.
7
20) Section 165-30G Directional Sign Size and Leight:
Current Requirements: 100 sq. ft. and 10 feet in height
Proposed Requirements: 50 sq. ft. and 10 feet in height
Net Change: 50 sq. ft. size reduction
21) Section 165-30G Wall Mounted Sign Size and Leight:
Current Requirements: 20 % of wall area and 35 feet in height
Proposed Requirements: 20 % of wall area not to exceed 200 sq. ft. And 25 feet in height
Net Change: potential reduction in sq. ft. depending on wall size and a reduction
of 10 feet in height
22) Section 165-30F Sign Spacing and Number:
Current Requirements: 50 feet between signs; no limit to number allowed
Proposed Requirements: 100 feet between signs; one sign allowed per road frontage
Net Change: 50 feet spacing increase between signs; variable reduction in
number of signs permitted on a property
23) Section 165-47D(1)(c) Trash Storage:
Current Requirements: none
Proposed Requirements: a concrete pad that is the same width as the dumpster enclosure and
at least 10 feet in length
Net Change: as described in Proposed Requirements (this standard is proposed to
prevent surface failure within the parking lot, travel aisle, or
driveway)
EI
24) Section 165-48.7 Utilities:
Current Requirements: none•, however, the Subdivision Ordinance requires underground
utilities for all residential, commercial, and industrial properties
Proposed Requirements: removes the requirement to place high voltage lines underground in
industrial parks
Net Change: as described in Proposed Requirements
U:WVAN\COMMON\PROJECTSIDFSIGN- I\NErCHANG.INF
9
-5 -
engineering. He said that even the third priorly has had a significant amount of money put into it. Ivir. Copp
i believed this plan to be a valuable tool. He recommended, however, that it be implemented on a pilot -basis for
a few years and then re-evaluated at the end of that time, just in case some things were missed.
Commission members discussed with Mr. Copp issues involved with grandfathering certain
roads on the plan and it was decided that there was justification to treat major roads differently from hard surface
roads with regard to grandfathering. It was determined that all of the roads on the major list that have
advertisement dates should be grandfathered because of the significant amount of money that has already been
invested in them. On the hard surface improvement listing, however, significant money has not been invested
until the project is close to its advertisement date. They decided to grandfather the #1 project because the
advertisement date was three months of� but felt no compelling reason to grandfather #2 and #3 on that list.
Mr. Bruce Armstrong, resident of Laurel Grove Road in the Back Creek District, gave the
Commission some history of how he and a neighbor, Mr. Rhodes, became involved in the project of pursuing
a rating system. Mr. Armstrong was in support of the new system
Commission members supported the new rating system They felt the old system was
misleading for citizens as far as how soon their road project would be completed once it was on the plan. They
also felt the new rating system would eliminate some of the inconsistencies experienced in the past with
scheduling roads for improvement.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommender)
approval of the Secondary Road Plan Rating System for Hard Surface Roads and Major Road Improvements with
the following caveats: 1) the weight designated for the category "time on the road plan" should be reduced from
3 to 2; 2) this plan should be considered as a pilot program for two years and then re-evaluated; 3) only the
first project on the hard surface road planwhichbas been advertised should be grandfathered; and, 4) on the
major road improvement plan all of the projects that have advertisement dates or have a substantial engineering
and planning investment from VDOT should be grandfathered-
Discussion
randfathered
Discussion Regarding Proposed Corridor Appearance and Development Design Standards
No Action Required
Mr. Wyatt said that as a result of discussions at the Planning Commission Retreat, the
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) was asked to undertake three projects, one of which
was corridor appearance and development design standards. Six items were identified for revision: 1) entrance
spacing requirements for arterial and collector road systems; 2) boulevard entrance design for arterial road
systems; 3) freestanding and building -mounted signage; 4) parking lot locations and setbacks; 5) landscaping
enhancements including maintenance requirements; and 6) building components and underground utilities. Mr.
Wyatt said that he would discuss signage and underground utilities and Mr. Ruddy will discuss parldng lots.
Mr. Wyatt presented the sign and underground utilities proposal.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 16, 1997 Page 46
-6 -
As far as signage was concerned, Commission members felt that what staff had presented was
the direction they wanted to go in. Commissioners stated that they would like to see one principal sign with, for
example, the business park's or shopping center's name and then the other offices or store names names smaller
on the same sign or on the individual buildings. They did not want to see a lot of individual small signs for each
business in all varieties and sizes. Commissioners also discussed the possibility of allowing more than one sign
on a site for large businesses with more than one entrance or a large site. They discussed current standards on
entrance spacing, but decided this method would actually permit far too many signs. They felt the proposal, as
written by staff— "allowing one sign per road frontage," would go a long way towards cleaning up the sign
situation and would be easier for everyone to live with.
Mr. Ruddy next presented the parking lot enhancements which included three main principals:
the raised island situation, the setback situation, and the screening situation. He discussed each one while
presenting slides of each.
Commission members favored the proposal and felt it was a step in the right direction. Several
facets of the plan were discussed One was the height of the berms and the fact that over time, they essentially
go flat. Discussion of increasing the height was pursued, but staff pointed out that the berm is to be 3' above the
finished elevation of the parking lot; and secondly, in a 30' setback, a 3 -to -1 slope could be maintainable, but a
2 to 1 would be more difficult. Staff noted that if a 3 -to- 1 slope is utilized, a minimum of at least 18' would be
needed to create the berm itself. It was pointed out that if the intent is to also provide an opportunity for bicycle
paths or sidewalks, the whole 30' cannot be used for an earth berm
The subject of allowing the staff some discretion to work with the developer/designer was also
discussed It was noted that the staff is constantly challenged in terms of allowing flexibility and certainly, a
situation will come up where these regulations will not make sense and the staff would be requiring someone to
do something that everyone agrees was really not appropriate. The Commission and staff were in favor of
plugging in some sort of discretion by v: ay of a Planning Commission or staff waiver to give someone an out.
The Commission also wanted the staff to add some definitions. They also felt it might be
worthwhile to consider some standards to address installation and maintenance.
In conclusion, staff asked if it was the Commission's desire for the DRRS to draft standards
pertaining to lighting; for example, height of structure, type of fixture, amout of wattage, etc. The Commission
was unanimously in favor of having the committee look into this.
Joint Frederick County/ Stephens City Planning Committee - 04/15/97 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Joint Frederick County/ Stephens City Planning Committee had
their second meeting and a chairman, Ray Ewing, was elected He said that a meeting will be held every fourth
Tuesday of the month at 5:00 p.m. at the Stephens City Town Hall. Mi. Thomas said that there are five concerns
that the committee is going to address: 1) water service area protection; 2) the quarry recharge area protection;
3) groundwater protection, 4) land development in and around Stephens City; 5) boundary adjustments between
Stephens City and Frederick County.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 16, 1997 Page 47
9 MI
YES: Light, Copenhaver, Marker, Romine, Thomas, Ours, Stone, Miller, DeHavcn
NO: Wilson
Discussion Regarding the Proposed Corridor Desip-n Standards
No Action Required
Mr. Wyatt presented proposed development design standards for boulevard entrance design for
arterial road systems, for entrance spacing requirements for arterial and collector road systems, and for building
components and underground utilities. Mr. Wyatt reviewed the proposed standards with the Commission in order
to receive their input.
Chairman DeHaven raised a concern about the proposed length and width of the raised
landscaped island for boulevard entrances and the proposal to reduce this improvement for turn lanes. Chairman
DeHaven felt those distances needed to be a whole lot longer and wider. He suggested 50'X 250'-300,' to allow
room for expansion.
Mr. Thomas raised the subject of lighting and felt it would be difficult to come up with a foot
candle spillage intensity. Mr. Thomas asked if it might be better to state the intent, rather than a foot candle level.
It was pointed out by other Planning Commission members that enforcement may be the issue. It was noted that
using foot candles would be definable and measurable, but a statement of intent would be open to interpretation.
The Commission felt the staff had done an excellent job on the design standards presented.
Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS is also interested in working with the design community on the
current buffer and screening requirements. He said that the issue for the design community is not necessarily
screening, but with the distance the buffer requires, particularly for commercial and industrial properties. Mr.
Wyatt said that the DRRS and staff understands the concerns of the design community and is interested in
working with them to reduce the distances; however, the DRRS wants to ensure there is an adequate buffer
provided, particularly where properties adjoin RP Zoning. Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission what they would
like to see to create the adequate screen, if the distances were reduced-
Commission
educed
Commission members felt that the distances between commercial/ industrial and RP were fine
as written and that both the distance and the buffer were needed when RP property was involved They felt that
the distinction was residential property and in a situation involving a division between residential and
commercial, the distance was as important as the screen. Commission members felt that if the situation involved
commercial and industrial, they would be more inclined to reduce the buffer distance.
Commission members inquired about a previously approved amendment allowing for a buffer
reduction. Mr. Wyatt said that this new proposal goes beyond that amendment, which was for a "common, shared
buffer easement," and allows two property owners to use one buffer instead of two, thereby saving land and
landscaping and grading costs. Mr. Wyatt said that the problem encountered is when one property owner is
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 7, 1997 Page 54
-7 -
developing and the adjacent properly owner has no desire to participate because of uncertainty about plans for
the property. Commission members felt there may be some type of an alternative that could be offered-
Mr.
ffered
Mr. Wyatt said that this item will go back to the DRRS for further study. No action was needed
by the Planning Commission at this time.
1996 Annual Report
No Action Required
Mr. Ruddy presented the 1996 Annual Report for Frederick County. He said that the report is
compiled to aid the Commission, the Board, and Frederick County citizens in their evaluation of the previous
year's activities and to aid in the comprehensive planning process for future years. Mr. Ruddy reviewed the
report with the Commission.
The Commission felt that an outstanding job was done with the report.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p -m. by
Resp y submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, ecretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman v
(Jr-)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 7, 1997 Page 55
-5 -
The
5 --
The motion was approved unanimously. (Mr. Thomas was absent.)
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #004-97 of Woodbrook Village for the development of 82 single-family
zero lot line and 81 multiplex homes with the condition that VDOT verifies that they will install a coordinated
lighting traffic control system for the intersection and that all review agency comments, Planning Commission
comments, and Board of Supervisors comments are addressed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion Regarding Proposed Corridor Design Standards
Mr. Wyatt led the presentation for the proposed corridor design standards. Mr. Wyatt said that
this information was presented to the Chamber of Commerce on June 25, 1997 and attendants at that meeting
included representatives from the Chamber, local developers, utility company representatives, structural and sign
designers, and officials from the City of Winchester and the Town of Stephens City. He said that the overall
attitude of this group was positive, although there were some minor concerns regarding underground utilities,
signs, and sidewalks.
Mr. Wyatt said that the concerns expressed at the Chamber meeting were forwarded to the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) during their June meeting. He said that the DRRS
recommended that staff revise the draft amendments and resubmit for final review during their July meeting. Mr.
Wyatt said that the staff is presenting the amendments to the Commission prior to the DRRS's July meeting in
order to let the Commission know what the major changes are and to receive input.
Mr. Wyatt presented Section 165-29 Motor Vehicle Access and he also addressed underground
utilities. Regarding the underground utilities, he said that the primary concern expressed at the Chamber meeting
was with the third sentence, "...Improvements to properties which require the upgrade to transformers or lines
shall be designed to provide underground service." He said that the development community feels this may create
a financial hardship and the City of Winchester advised that they don't have that requirement on the books for
the same reason. Mr. Wyatt said that it was his understanding that when the Berryville project was undertaken,
it was done through a public-private partnership effort and the cost was not borne strictly by the development
community. The Planning Commission felt the statement should remain because it addressed the utilitiy
company portion of the facilities and believed it was the cost of doing business with the utility company.
Mr. Ruddy presented Section 165-27 Off Street Parking and Parking Lots; and Mr. Lawrence
presented 165-30 Signs. Other than a few minor questions for clarification, the Commission had no problems
with these sections and felt the staff had done h good job on the amendments.
Since the Board of Supervisors had expressed support for new standards for corridors at the
Planning Commission's Retreat, the Commission didn't feel a work session was necessary. Chairman DeHaven
instructed the staff to arrange for a public hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 1997 Page 76
-4 -
Upon motion made by Mr. Ours and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #006-97 of Westridge III by Glaize Development, Inc. to develop 19
single-family detached urban residential lots provided that all reveiw agency comments, staff report comments,
and all comments or concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have been
adequately addressed-
DISCUSSION
ddressed
DISCUSSION REGARDING CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS
Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, stated that one of the items on the work program
for the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) was to develop new design standards to
enhance the appearance of the County's corridors. He said that discussions were held at the Planning
Commission level and a public hearing was held at the Commission's August 13, 1997 meeting. Mr. Wyatt said
that subsequent to that meeting, the staff received comments from various members of the community, members
of the Industrial Parks Association, and a local engineering firm expressing some concerns. Mr. Wyatt said that
before forwarding this to the Board, the staff felt it prudent for the Commission to review the concerns and
comments and have an opportunity to discuss them Mr. Wyatt introduced some of the representatives of the
concerned groups who were in the audience: representing the Top of Virginia Building Association was Mr. Kit
Moulden; representing G W. Clifford & Associates were Mr. Charles Maddox, Jr. and Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin;
representing Eastgate Commerce Center was developer Mr. Allen Hudson; representing the Ft. Collier Industrial
Park was Mr. Jim McEvaine; representing the Industrial Parks Association was Mr. Whit Wagner,, representing
the Shockey Company was Mr. Fred Ash; and representing Painter -Lewis Engineers was Mr. John Lewis.
Mr. Wyatt next reviewed each of the comments expressed within the various sections of the
following design standards: off-street parking, entrance spacing requirements, and the utility section.
Mr. Morris raised the point that during committee discussions, especially for the industrial park
areas, it was suggested that maybe the industrial parks should be exempt from any of the design standards;
however, when this subject came up, the committee was not heavily into the issue of flex -tech, which may bring
retail traffic into industrial parks. Mr. Moms said that some of the comments may not yet address flex -tech
because the committee is still discussing that issue. Mr. Wyatt replied that some of the issues that the Industrial
Parks Association (IPA) raised pertained to parking and parking lots.
Mr. Miller commented on a concern raised about the ability to install high voltage lines
underground in industrial settings. Mr. Wyatt explained that the way the language reads, there is the potential
for interpretation that if there is an upgrade to the h ansformer or to the service line into the building, which could
happen if an industrial use upgraded some process where they had the need for more electricity, the power lines
that follow the road right-of-way, as well as the lines coming in where the transformer is sitting and the service
line to the building, would all need to go underground. Mr. Wyatt said that the primary concern is who will bear
the cost of doing that.
Members of the Commission were of the opinion that they would be willing to entertain
compromises on some of the issues; however, they did not want to gut the "intent" of the design standards. They
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 110
-5 -
felt there was room for compromises, particularly in industrial park areas; but they did feel a need to insist on
some of the major issues, particularly if the County was ever going to obtain the standards it has been striving
for. Mr. Wyatt said that many of the comments submitted warrant consideration and he did not feel any one item
compromised the enhancement of the corridors involved. Mr. Wyatt said that he did feel strongly against the
comment that the design standards should only apply to arterial and not to major collector roads. Mr. Wyatt
explained that unlike the City of Winchester, the County is going to grow and has areas that are designed to grow.
He said that roads being planned, such as Tasker Road, Warrior Road, etc., will over time develop into major
corridors and will be traveled on by others besides professional drivers and industrial park employees. He said
there will be mixed land areas that will have places of residential use, as well as commerical and in some cases,
light industrial. Mr. Wyatt said that his greatest concern would be to exempt the major collector roads from
meeting the design standards.
Chairman 13eHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Kit Moulden, developer in the City of Winchester and resident of Frederick County, was
present on behalf of the Top of Virginia (TOV) Building Association. Mr. Moulden said that discussions have
led him to believe that the Commission and the staff had done everything right in trying to present the proposed
standards to the development community and he apologized that the TOV Building Association had failed to get
a timely response back to the Commission. Mr. Moulden said that he was not in a position at this time to
comment on the technicial aspects of the proposal and he asked the Commission to consider tabling it for 30 days
so the development community could review it and give a cohesive response.
Mr. Allen Hudson, associated with the recently approved Eastgate Commerce Center, stated that
he has 70 acres of commercial property for which he is attempting to ascertain a use. He said that he has some
very interested parties, but he knows he is in competition with some commercial properties in Warren County and
other areas as well. Mr. Hudson said that he, too, was not prepared to present comments on the proposed design
standards and he also asked the Commission to consider tabling the issue for 30 days, so that he could study the
proposal. He felt there were some issues that needed to be addressed on commercial properties as well as
industrial.
Mr. Whit Wagner, representing the Industrial Parks Association (IPA), said that the IPA has
been working with the staff and many of the concerns raised were theirs. Mr. Wagner said that the IPA applauds
the concept of upgrading the built environment and felt the staff had done an exceptionally good job. He said
that there were a couple items, however, that they would like to see modified somewhat to give them a
compromise between what they can afford and what's best for the health, safety, and welfare of the built
environment On the topic of underground utilities, Mr. Wagner said that he certainly encourages them; but when
it comes to high-voltage underground utilities, it becomes onerous and adds significantly to the price of the lots.
He said that those concerns have been addressed, but are not yet a part of the written text. He said that the IPA
would like to see the actual written text before they would whole-heartedly endorse the program. Mr. Wagner
also felt it would be a good idea to table the design standards.
Mr. James McIlvaine, reprgenting the Fort Collier Industrial Park, said that they thought the
guidelines were for the highway corridor districts and subsequently, didn't realize that any of the regulations
would apply to them; however, now they realize this is not the case and that most of the guidelines do apply to
the industrial parks. Mr. McIlvaine felt that others may have had the same misunderstanding. Mr. McIlvaine felt
that some time needed to be spent discussing the expense items.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 111
Members of the Commission agreed that more discussion on the design standards were needed,
especially in light of the comments received Commission members believed that the development design
community's input was imperative on these issues and thanked those present for their input. They felt that some
of the major issues that needed addressed were: 1) the flex -tech issue in the industrial parks, especially as far as
parking was concerned; 2) the misunderstanding that the design standards applied only to corridors, while in
actuality it involved the industrial parks as well; and 3) the underground utilities issue --the one single thing they
felt could be done that would improve corridor appearance more than anything else. Commission members
believed that the best forum for discussion would be at the committee level with the representatives of the
development/building community.
Legal Counsel, Jay Cook, advised that since the Commission had already made a formal
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at a previously advertised public hearing, the proper way to proceed
would be to forward the design standards to the Board and have the Board table them at their level. Mr. Tierney
felt the staff could work out the logistics; and, in the meantime, a meeting could be scheduled at the committee
level to get the discussions started.
APPOINTiVIENT OF MR SCOT MARSH TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW &
REGULATIONS SUBCOM1 UTTEE
Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. Scot Marsh to the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by
Respectful submitted,
kris C. Tierney, Secrettu
ZI '/&6 Vii"' �f
Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman
(Jr.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of October 1, 1997 Page 112
-7 -
Discussion Regarding Corridor Desip_n Standards Status
Mr. Evan Wyatt, Deputy Planning Director, presented the proposed development design
standards that were previously submitted to the Commission at their meeting of October 15, 1997. Mr. Wyatt
recalled that at the October 15 meeting, the Commission referred the standards back to the Development Review
& Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) due to comments received during the meeting from the development and
design community. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS met with the development and design community on October
23 and after discussion, felt that the majority of the comments made were valid and that flexibility in design was
a critical element to the process. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS recommended that the staff outline the comments
received for the Commission, redraft language for those comments that were agreed upon, and request that the
Commission determine what approach should be taken for the few standards in which a consensus was not
reached W. Wyatt then reviewed each of the specific sections identified with the Commission.
Mr. Kit Moulden, appearing on behalf of the Top of Virginia Building Association, thanked the
Commission and the staff for allowing time for discussions on the ordinance provisions to take place. Mr.
Moulden said that at this time, the Top of Virginia Building Association is comfortable with the proposed
amendments.
The Planning Commission agreed with the revision to Section 165-27E(4)(b) concerning raised
islands, and they also agreed with the language in Section 165-27E(4)(d) concerning the pedestrian walkway
element.
Regarding the setback for parking lots fronting on arterial roadways and major collector
roadways, W. Wyatt said that the DRRS recommended a 30' setback, while the development community felt that
a 20' setback would allow flexibility to do enhancements. Members of the Planning Commission felt it would
be short-sighted to reduce the requirement from 30' to 20', especially in consideration that these were major
collector roads where there was a high potential for expansion and high volumes of traffic. They felt a need to
look at this for the fixture as far as what the County anticipated developments to look like. Other members of the
Commission had concern for the small property owner and increased Board of Zoning Appeals activity for
exception requests.
Two members of the community came forward to speak on this issue:
Mr. Richard Hardison, owner of commercial property within the County, expressed concern
about how this requirement would work in an area that is already partially developed or on properties with plans
that have already been approved. Mr. Hardison said that it would create a "hodge-podge" of development with
some sites using the old requirements and some using the new.
W. James Emmart, with Emmart Oil Company, expressed concerns about how the amendments
would effect retail establishments. Mr. Emmart felt the 30' proposed setback would drastically cut the useable
size of a retail site and was not desirable considering that retail property today was very expensive.
The Planning Commission agreed to allow for a provision to waive the 30' requirement under
certain extenuating circumstances. They felt that doing so would offer some flexibility due to extenuating
circumstances, but it would also leave a clear indication that the ordinance requirement is 30'.
Continuing on through the design standards to the screening requirement between industrially -
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 124
-8 -
zoned properties and industrial parks, Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS revised the text by adding the sentence:
Industrial zoned properties that are located within an approved master planned industrial park shall be exempt
from this requircment, if the adjoining property is also zoned industrial. The Planning Commission felt this
revision was appropriate.
Regarding tree plantings along the road, the Commission was in favor of the clustering concept
with a minimum clustering spacing of 20' and they also preferred to determine the size and number of trees based
on one per 30' of parking lot perimeter instead of one per 40'.
The Commission agreed with the revision to Section 165-27E(12)(c) to reduce the width of
pedestrian walkways from eight feet to six_
After discussion on the boulevard entrances, Section 165-29C(1), the Commission still had
concerns about this section. Uncertainties remained as to whether a minimum acreage should be established to
meet boulevard entrance requirements or whether a trip generation factor should be used Members felt that site
design was involved and the boulevard entrances as proposed might suit some layouts and not others.
Commission members felt this particular section needed to be refined and brought back again separately, so as
not to delay approval of the design standards as a whole.
The Commission had no outstanding concerns with Sections 165-291), Interparcel Connectors,
and 165-48.7, Utilities, as presented
Mr. Wyatt stated that with the exception of a couple comments and concerns, he felt the
proposed design standards were in pretty good shape. Mr. Wyatt said that revisions would be made as discussed
and additional work with the designers will be done on the boulevard issue. Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission
if they would prefer staff to bring the design standards back to the Commission for further discussion or public
hearing. The consensus of the Commission was that the staff should advertise the design standards for the next
available date for public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by
=Respectfully submitted,
II
kh'is C. T , tary
Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman
(Jr.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 19, 1997 Page 125
464
residential areas. Adequate frontage and depth should be provided, and access should I
properly controlled to promote safety and orderly development_ Nuisar_ce factors are i
be avoided.
_ Standard
P Industrial
Allowed Uses Classificatioi
(SIC)
fP - St3
d ti ar�d plutrlbt ig artd to t pr r p z t 3
Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, the abov
amendment to the Frederick County Code was approved. by the following, recorded vote:
James L. Longerbeam - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK
COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING: ARTICLE IV SUPPLEMENTAL USE
REGULATIONS, SECTION 165-23 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SECTION 165-
27, OFF-STREET PARKING; PARKING'LOTS SECTION 165-29 MOTOR
VEHICLE ACCESS, SECTION 165-30, SIGNS, SECTION 165-35 NUISANCES
SECTION 165-36, LANDSCAPING, SECTION 165-37 BUFFER AND SCREENING
REOUIREMENTS, SECTION 165-47 LANDFILLS JUNKYARDS TRASH
DISPOSAL AND INOPERABLE VEHICLES AND SECTION 165-48.7 UTILUIES•
AND ARTICLE XXI DEFINITIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE INTENDED TO
ENHANCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN FREDERICK COUNTY -
REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER STUDY
End of Planning Commission Public Hearings.
OTHER PLANNING ITEMS•
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN - WESTRTDGE HI - APPROVED
Mr. Evan Wyatt, assistant planning director, presented this request to the Board noting that
the planning commission and staff recommended approval.
Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by Robert M. Sager, the master
development plan of Westridge III, was approved by the following recorded vote:
James L. Longerbeam Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Richard C. Shii�kle - Aye
Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye
CONWAY STREET ABANDONMENT AND CONVEYANCE - APPROVED UNDER
1\40v i ;), f 1n
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Charles W. Omdoff, Sr. - Aye
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICATION #005-97 OF C. L. ROBINSON
CORPORATION TO REZONE 26.895 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) TO RP
(RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE). THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE
NEST SIDE OF MERREVIAN'S LANE (ROUTE -6211 -AT WINCHESTER &
WESTERN RAILROAD CROSSING AND EAST OF ROUTE 37
APPROXIMATELY 1.100' SOUTH OF BRECKENRIDGE LANE, AND IS
IDENTIMED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 53-A-88 IN THE
BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - DENIED
Chairman Longerbeam announced that he would be abstaining from any discussion or vote
on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict. He turned the Chair over to Vice Chairman,
Richard C. Shickle at this time.
Evan Wyatt, assistant planning director, presented this request to the Board noting that staff
and planning commission recommended approval with consideration of proffering.
Steve Gyurisin of G. W. Clifford & Associates, appeared before the Board asking that they
approve this rezoning request.
.Richard Pifer, resident of Merriman's Lane, appeared before the Board requesting that this
be denied until the roads in this area have been upgraded to handle the additional traffic that this type
of subdivision would generate.oetter from Mr. Pifer addressing this rezoning application is on file in
the office of the County Administrator.)
Board Member Robert Sager endorsed what Mr. Pifer said in that the roads cannot support
any additional traffic.
Board Member Margaret Douglas moved for approval stating that she had spoken with
planning commission members and they had recommended approval.
There was no second to the Douglas motion; therefore the motion died.
Chairman Longerbeam Takes Back the Chair.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FREDERICK
COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING; ARTICLE IV, SUPPLEMENTAL USE
REGULATIONS, SECTION 165-23, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 165-
27, OFF-STREET PARKING: PARKING LOTS: SECTION 165-29, MOTOR
VEHICLE ACCESS, SECTION 165-30, SIGNS: SECTION 165-35, NUISANCES,
SECTION 165-47, LANDFILLS, JUNKYARDS, TRASH DISPOSAL AND
INOPERABLE VEHICLES, AND SECTION 165-48.7, UTILITIES, AND ARTICLE
XXI, DEFINITIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ESTABLISH
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE INTENDED TO ENHANCE
512
THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPME1Vrif PROJECTS - POSTPONED INDEFINITELY
Assistant Planning Director, Evan Wyatt, presented this request to the Board and advised that
some concerns had been expressed to him and he asked the Board if perhaps they would like to
i
i
postpone these amendments until a later date.
The Board felt the public hearing should proceed.
The following citizens appeared before the Board to oppose these amendments:
John Good, Gainesboro District representing Farmers Livestock Exchange, feels amendments
are not advertised in a way that the general public can understand what is being discussed.
David Kohler, owner of county business, does not feel this is too extreme. Feels staff and
business owners need to work together.
Mike Kehoe, Stephens City Administrator, explained that Stephen City is concerned about
Route 11 North and South as they want corridor conservation.
Jim Emmart representing Northern Virginia Petroleum Association, endorsed what John
Good had said. He feels these amendments are very extreme and asked the Board to vote NO or to
at least table this matter for six months.
Bob Claytor, Funkhouser Petroleum, feels this impacts a number of businesses in the county
and asked the Board to vote NO or to at least table for six months.
Thomas A. Schultz Jr., local attorney, representing Holtzman Oil stated that it was his
understanding that most of the businesses were not aware of this ordinance change. Asked Board
to either vote no or at least to postpone.
Jack Kelley, representing Ed Edwards Sign Company, feels cost of development has raised
significantly.
Bob Brown, representing Banserman Oil, feels this is excessive and asked that it be
postponed.
Tommy Kremer, Kremer Oil, supports what has been said up to this point in opposition to
these amendments.
Richard Hardison, joint property owner of land on Route 11. Concerned about what
happens if these amendments do nothing to help the businesses already established.
Susan Galbraith, county resident, endorses this ordinance amendment as she feels both he
61
approved in his budget request for FY99. SheriffWilliamson advised the Board that he would accept
the funding to off set one county funded position if the Board was in agreement with his plan.
Upon motion made by Robert M Sager, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the above
request of the Sheriffwas approved by the following recorded vote:
James L. Longerbeam - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Robert Ni Sager - Aye
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Charles W. Orndoilr Sr. - Aye
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW RECOMIOIENDED DESIGN
STANDARDS - APPROVED
Planning Director Kris Tierney addressed the Board with reference to the recommended
design standards that had been presented to the Board by the planning department at an earlier
meeting. I& Tierney advised the Board that it is his proposal, based on input received from citizens
as well as businessmen, that these current amendments be scraped and in turn the process of creating
enhanced design standards would start over again.
Upon motion made by Charles W. Orndofl� Sr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the request
as stated above was approved by the following recorded vote:
James L. Longerbeam - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Robert Ni Sager - Aye
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Charles W. Orndofl� Sr. - Aye
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #010-97 OF T. P. AND SUSAN GOODMAN TO
CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: SOCIAL CENTER, CATERED
FUNCTIONS, TOURS, MEETINGS, OUTDOOR RECREATION, ETC. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 534 REDBUD ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 54-A-87 IN THE STONEWALL
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Zoning Administrator Eric Lawrence presented this CUP request noting that this application
was submitted to the planning department on June 9, 1997. Mr. Lawrence outlined the areas of
concern that have been involved with this request, and based on current information received from
VDOT they still are not satisfied with the entrance that has been proposed by Mr. Goodman.
Resident Engineer Jerry Copp advised the Board that as of this date Mr. Goodman has not