The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 03-16-94 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia MARCH 16, 1994 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Bimonthly Report ...................................... A 2) Committee Reports ..................................... B 3) Citizen Comments (attachment) ............................ C 4) Master Development Plan #001-94 of Woodside Estates for single family detached homes. This property is located west and adjacent to Route 641 (Double Church Road), south of the intersection of Route 277, in the Opequon District. (Mr.Bise)..........................................D 5) Informal discussion with Delmer Robinson, C. L. Robinson Corp., regarding a possible rezoning of 16 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-3 (Industrial Transition) for the proposed headquarters of VDOT. This property is located on the south side of Route 50 West, at the intersection of 803, in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Tierney) ........................................ E 6) Discussion with Ray Robinson, Jr., regarding the possibility of consolidating two lots (1.13 acres and 12,239 sq. ft.) into one lot and dividing this new lot equally. (Mr. Miller) ......................................... F 2 7) Discussion regarding the Frederick County 1994 Primary Road Improvement Plan. (Mr. Wyatt)....v..................................... G 8) Discussion regarding an amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance District), Section 165-58 Intent, and Section 165-62, Gross Density. The proposed amendments pertain to permitted gross density for multi -family housing types and internal residential separation buffers. (Mr. Wyatt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H 9) Other .................................................I M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: March 4, 1994 (1) Rezonings Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Twin Lakes 4/04/90 Shaw RA to B2/RP Negley Construction 2/03/94 Ston B3 to B2 (2) Rezonings Approved: (dates are BOS meeting dates) None (3) Rezonings Denied:___(dates are BOS meeting dates) None (4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: (dates are submittal dates) None (5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: (dates are approval dates) HCMF Corp. 02/23/94 Ston Convalescent & Nursing Home (6) site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 9/12/89 Opeq Grace Brethren Church 6/08/90 Shaw Flex Tech 10/25/90 Ston Lake Centre 05/15/91 Shaw Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Stan Freeton 04/27/92 Opeq Salvation Army 12/03/92 Ston Franklin Mobile Home 11/30/93 Shaw 84 Lumber 01/26/94 Ston Corrigated Container 02/22/94 BkCk Albin Ridge Storage 03/01/94 Gain Shenandoah B1dg.Supply 03/01/94 Gain Trmt.facil Church Lgt. Industrial Townhouses Whse. Addition Townhouses Ofc/Housing Mobile Home Park Storage Addition Light Industrial Storage Facilities Warehouse 2 (7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates) Sanitation Authority 2/22/94 Shaw Wasterwater Treatment Plant Expansion Valley Proteins 02/24/94 Gain Utility Bldg Add. Shockey Realty -Foodmaker 02/28/94 Ston Warehouse (8) Subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Briarwood Est. 01/04/94 Stonewall (9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C or BOS approval dates Abrams Point, Phase I 6/13/90 Shawnee Lake Centre 06/19/91 Shawnee Coventry Courts 12/04/91 Shawnee Freeton 05/20/92 Opequon Village at Sherando 06/16/93 Opequon Paul Negley 08/11/93 Stonewall Fredericktowne Est., Sec 8 & 9 10/06/93 Opequon Lake Holiday Sec. 1B 12/08/93 Gainesboro (10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) Woodside Estates 02/22/94 0 p e q u o n (11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: (dates are BOS approval dates Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek James R. Wilkins III 04/14/93 Shawnee (12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. approval dates) None (13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending:(submit. dates) Fred E. Unger 01/31/94 Gaine 3.1' side and 5.5' rear -existing house Toby Savolainen 02/16/94 BkCk 40' side -two story detached garage Charles A. Bennett 02/28/94 Shaw 4.25' front -attached one Gar garage 3 (14) BZA Applications Approved: (approval dates) Fred. Co. Sanitation Auth 2/08/94 Kerry Poche 2/08/94 (15) BZA Applications Denied: None Shaw 341front & 43'side expansion of Parkins Mill Wastewater Trmt. Plant Ston 1'8" front -existing house (16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT -„ ACTIVITY REPORT #52 (,Feb. 15-28) 1. Warrior Road On February 16, Kris Tierney met with Jim Bowman to resolve issues which were preventing the execution of a letter of agreement between_ JASBO and the County. The letter sets out the conditions under which JASBO will dedicate land to compensate for the land, currently part of Sherando Park, to be converted for a segment of Warrior Drive. The agreement has now been signed. 2. Route 642 On February 23, Kris Tierney and Renee' Arlotta accompanied Supervisor Smith to the homes of John Sargent and William Heflin in order to complete deed transactions for the acquisition of acreage needed for the realignment of Route 642. The deeds were signed and have been recorded. 3. WAIS On February 18, Bob Watkins attended the Winchester Area Transportation Study Committee meeting. 4. Battlefield Issues On February 24, Kris Tierney and Evan Wyatt met with EDC Director, June Wilmot, and City Planning Director, Tim Youmans, to work out a strategy for the completion of an ISTEA grant application for acquisition of the Grim property, The Board will receive the application at their second meeting in March., The application needs to be submitted to the State by the end of March. On February 17, Bob Watkins and Mark Lemasters attended the Battlefield Task Force meeting. A presentation was given by a planner from Fredericksburg describing that city's battlefield preservation efforts. Other issues were discussed. Evan Wyatt produced a bicycle network map to provide access to all significant sites on an interim tour network plan. 5. GIS and Mapping[ ESRI Technician, Ken Holbert, has finalized procedures for conversion of CAD files to Arclnfo files. Mr. Holbert will be returning to the Planning Department during the first week of March to train members of the Planning Staff. There are still some problems with the CAD micro network, but they are being worked out. Mapping for the Battlefield Task Force is nearing completion. Information layers for battlefields, such as land use mapping, will be transferred to tax base maps for future use. Street name signs are being erected and the Planning Staff is assisting Public Works in problem resolution. Structure numbering continues to be a daily work item. Because of street name sign installation and research to assist Public Works, problems created by the original consultant have surfaced and are being corrected. An extensive file of CAD changes and corrections are being completed. 6. Site Meetings Evan Wyatt participated in the following meetings: A Technical Review Committee meeting to discuss the proposed expansion of the Miller Milling site located in the Fort Collier Industrial Park. Met with Keith Burr on site at Valley Proteins to finalize plan requirements for a proposed expansion. Met with David McClure to finalize plan requirements for the proposed Salvation Army Center located in the Fort Collier Industrial Park. Met with Kevin Kenney to discuss the proposed expansion of Winchester Countertop located in the Baker Lane Industrial Park. 7. Plans Review/Approval Evan Wyatt reviewed a site plan for Boyer Landscaping for the relocation of a proposed parking lot. Evan approved the following site plans: Valley Protein utility building; Foodmaker (truck bay additions and site improvements); Paramount Pest Control (minor revision to proposed parking lot and maneuvering area); Sanitation Authority (expansion of Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. 8. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee - 2/22 Mtg Recommended RP Density amendments to go to PC & BOS. Considered reclassification of CUP uses with different fee structures. Considered request to amend requirements pertaining to minor collector roads. Recommended the appointment of Terry Stone (Gainesboro) and Scot Marsh (Opequon) as new citizen committee members. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: a COUNTY of FREDERICK Department oC Plan nin- anti Development 703 / 665-651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Possible Discussion, Mr. Thomas G. Brubaker March 1, 1994 Chairman Golladay has advised Mr. Thomas Brubaker that he may address the Commission on the issue outlined in the attached material. This material is being presented to you in case he decides to use the available forum. It had not been determined at press time whether he wishes to do this or not. 9 North LOLICI 1Un SlrcCt P.O. 13c)\ ()01 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester. V:A 22004 �`Gti r� CpG COUNTY of FREDERICK PLANNLNG CO3,11VIISSION James W. Golladay, Jr. - Chairman Opequon District Roger L Thomas opequon District Ronald W. Carper Gainesboro District Todd D. Shenk Gainesboro District S. Blaine Wilson Shawnee District February 23, 1994 Mr. Thomas G. Brubaker 3407 Cedar Creek Grade Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Brubaker: John R Marker - Vice Cltairrnay, Back Creek District Marjcrie H. Copenhaver Back Creek District Charles S. Dehaven Stonewall District John H. Light Stonewall District George Romine Shawnee District This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1994, concerning establishment of "a trailer community for agricultural workers in the middle of our neighborhood". To give you a little history on this subject, some years ago, in the early or middle 1980's, the Planning Commission received a request from a farmer to establish housing on his farm for agricultural workers. After considerable discussion over a period of several months, the Planning Commission approved and sent to the Board of Supervisors an ordinance amendment to allow agricultural housing as an accessory use to the primary farming use. Discussion also centered around whether or not the housing should be located on the actual parcel being farmed or on the farm in general. Because of the various sized parcels owned by those involved in agricultural production, it was determined that it should apply to the entire acreage and not just the parcel upon which workers were working at the time. This could not become a labor camp for other agricultural operators nor could it become the principal use of the property. Also, at about the same time, we discussed allowing the processing or agricultural products produced on the farm and determined that this also should be an allowed use as long as it remains as an accessory use to the principal use. This also applied to the entire acreage of the farm. Because of the fact that accessory housing for agricultural workers is permitted by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, I am of the opinion that this proposal should be permitted. 9 North Loudoun Street FAX (703) 678-0682 P 0 Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 (703) 66-5-5651 Winchester, V.-� 22604 Page -2- T. Brubaker Ltr. February 23, 1994 For your information, the Planning Commission reserves time on their agenda for any citizen to briefly address the Commission on any item of concern. These times are set at the beginning of the agenda and you are welcome to come and address us on this situation. If you would like to appear please contact Wayne Miller at the Planning Office to be scheduled. We will probably be able to accommodate you at the March 16, 1994 meeting. AIso, in fairness to all, I would ask that you discuss the situation with Woodbine Farms before our meeting so they may know of your concerns. Thank you very much for your letter and interest and if there is anything else I can help you with, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, James W. Golladay, Jr. Chairman JWG/slk cc: John R Riley, Jr., County Administrator James L. Longerbeam, Supervisor, Back Creek District Residents of dar Creek Grade Winchester, V. 22602 February 10, 1994 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator 9 Court Square ��- Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: We, concerned residents of Cedar Creek Grade, want to express how disturbed we are about Woodbine Farms establishing a trailer community for agricultural workers in the middle of our neighborhood (see Attachment #1). After seeing heavy equipment doing excavating work, we obtained a copy of the Health Department's permit (see Attachment #2) relating to the work being performed. Shocked describes our reactions upon seeing that this type of housing would even be proposed for this location. We take great pride in the fact that Cedar Creek Grade is a very scenic and historic part of Frederick County. The establishment of an encampment for farm workers in the midst of our neighborhood would unduly burden us with all of the unseemliness that surrounds the this type of housing. Great harm would be done to the value of our homes and it would have a negative impact on the harmony of our neighborhood. Chapter 165-26 of the FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (see Attachment #3) allows for accessory use housing on the parcel lot or Premises where the workers are actively working. This eleven and one-half acre lot is not "on the same parcel or lot as the primary use". Construction began when the drain field was installed for the trailers! Time is of the essence! As the Frederick County Administrator, you are being made aware of our concerns and oPPosition to the incongruence being inflicted on our neighborhood. Also, how very important it is to us that it is stopped from going any further. Your assistance in protecting the welfare of the citizens of the Cedar Creek Grade neighborhood is greatly appreciated. Please keep us apprised on this matter. Sincerely, Residents of Cedar Creek Grade f✓ - 4 f 3,10 G �Gc� L•U !f, LSC �J�c �� >c? �.� 1 `� 3�Z7 7 3 417.Z RIA iN V i ^ l f /' X] � �N � � U G ZG Z Z �-e Z_ 3�Q i)cc�� ) r),�<�n , �1<I5� Ly�tt ti C L c �i Aa.r L c lCY �• G. Cu LA J i 6 Mr. John R, Riley, Jr. Page 2 A4tac co X-- N -04 ti ! O N al V m . N N Q1 — Q t0 N K7 N ti ! O N al V N — . N CCl N Application for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit Commonwealth of Virginia For Department Use Only Health Department �j Department of Health A �a � L Mn 1 Identification Number s �"b 1 i 7 �� Map Reference Health Department Date Received — 7 — To Be Completed By The Applicant Type sewage system: ® New ❑ Repair ❑ Expanded ❑ Conditional FHA/VA yes ❑ no ❑ Owner Woodbine Farm_, Tnr Address Phone _ A h 7 -- L s i Winchester,yA 2?601 Agent Stephen M. Gyuri.sin Address P - 0. Box 746 Phone — 3971 Ste hens C' _ty. VA 22695 Tirections to Property Prom . .- - _f= to n.-. i 10. r •. - .. C Subdivision n/ a Section n/ a Block . n/ a Lot n/ a -7o-y. Mat -d- Other Property Identification 61 nn0_Ann_nnnn_nnnn_nn, 4_n Dimensions/size of Lot/Property 11 .6 0 A r_ r e s Other Application Information I. ulliding/facillty ® New Intermittent Use ❑ Yes 11. Residential Use ® Yes Termite Treatment ❑ Yes 0 Single Family Basement ❑ Yes Fixtures in Basement ❑ Yes 111. Commercial Use ❑ Yes Commercial/Wastewater ❑ Yes If yes, give volumes and describe . IV. Water Supply: ❑ Public ❑ Private ❑ Existing M No If yes, describe: ❑ No No ❑ Multifamily Number of Units -:pr, Number of Bedrooms i No (woorkles�omes for agricultural No ❑ er No Describe: ❑ No Number of Patrons Number of Employees El New Describe: Mxisting V. Proposed Installation: ❑x Septic tank and drainfield ❑ Other If othe describe SITE Attac a site Ian r showing dimensions of property, proposed and/or existing structures and PLAN driveways, underground utilities, adjacent soil absorption systems, bodies of water, drainage ways, and wells and springs within 200 feet radius of the center of the proposed building or drainfield. Distances may be paced or estimated Th ,property lines and building location are clearly marked and the property is sufficiently visible to see the to- pography. I ive permission to the Department to enter onto the property described for the purpose of processing �7�VMA V 14, At, 7.. , S roof owner 1agent o-� CA.& 200Ld 4/83 1. `� 1 V"L i.''C/uLL� 1 /' 1� � o r _ Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit PAGE __L_OF--Z- Commonwealth of Virginia Health Department �A p e ara end f Health Identification Num er_� `� " 22 17 cL Health Department Map Reference r-.-n-ral Information New,4 Repair ❑ Expanded ❑ Conditional ❑ FHA ❑ VA ❑ Case No. Bas4d on the application for a sewage disposal system construction permit filed in accordance with Section 3.13.01, a construction permit is here y s ue� to: 0 `� _ 6 6 Owner - Telephone 7 - -Address Address I Y Fo a Type Sewage disposal system whi h is to be constructed on/at u'a/ L - Subdivision Section/Block Lot Actual or estimated water use yYV,;V1 DESIGN NOTE: INSPECTION RESULTS Water supply, existing- (describe) LL Water supply location: Satisfactory yes ❑ no ❑ hZ a L L r) IV e1� comments G. W. 2 Received: yes ❑ no ❑ not applicable ❑ To be installed: class cased grouted Buildinsewer: Building sewer: yes C] no ❑ comments ji I.D. PVC 40, or equivalent. Satisfactory Slope 1.25" per 10' (minimum). ❑ Other ReVic tank: Capacity gals. ( inimum). Pretreatment unit: yes ❑ no ❑ comments Other - Satisfactory I structure: Inlet-outlet structure: yes ❑ no ❑ comments rInlet-outlet PVC 40, 4" tees or equivalent. Satisfactory j ❑ Other Pump nd pump station: Pump & pump station: yes ❑ no ❑ comments No Yes ❑ describe and show design. Satisfactory if Ae : Gravity mains: 3" or larger I.D., minimum 6" fall per Conveyance method: yes ❑ no ❑ comments 100', 1500 Ib. crush strength or equivalent. Satisfactory ❑ Other Distribution box: S ,� L l �T %►� W Distribution box: yes ❑ no ❑ comments Precast concrete with ports. Satisfactory ❑ Other Header lines: Header lines: yes ❑ no ❑ comments Material: 4" I.D. 1500 Ib. crush strength plastic or equiva- Satisfactory jaat from distribution box to 2' into absorption trench. inimum 7 Other Percolation lines: Percolation lines: yes ❑ no ❑ comments Gravity 4" plastic 1000 Ib. per foot bearing load or Satisfactory equivalent, slope 2" 4" (min. max.) per 100'. ❑ Other Absorption trenches- Absorption trenches: yes ❑ no ❑ comments Square ft. required_: depth from ground surface Satisfactory to bottom of trench —L—_; aggre?ate size t—�� Trench bottom slope'' - L= '` l °0 center to center spacing �_; trench width = /—; Date Inspected and approved by: Depth of aggreg to Trench length Q Number of trenches Sanitarian C.H.S. 202A Revised 6684 II -2 - NOT TO L � 7 i. & q — 100 D17'Cf� — 0 Al C OW Health Department Identification Numbe _ z7 Schematic drawing of sewage disposal system and topographic features. PAGE.. OF Z Show the lot lines of the building lot and building site, sketch of property showing any topographic features which may impact on the design of the system, all existing and/or proposed structures including sewage disposal systems and wells within 100 feet of sewage disposal system and reserve area. The schematic drawing of the sewage disposal system shall show sewer lines, pretreatment unit, pump station, conveyance sys- tem, and subsurface soil absorption system, reserve area, etc. When a nonpublic drinking water supply is to be located on the same lot show all sources of pollution within 100 feet. ❑ The information required above has been drawn on the attached copy of the sketch submitted with the application. Attach additional sheets as necessary to illustrate the design. - kEi�P sap r7e, ".02 W f- FRo m TX*1La,r -MAIAM111 PftP_r9 ON AU L Ylt Foie t� J N q7 9'6 f oGe4� ROUTE 6 ZZ I Al Xrsr�N6 tV&1-L-7`a Sur�Cr Trt��c SSS/ ,Yi 57`IIvG !Y-0 uS OPa.3tAJ21Ytw� .—POT0pagElD 04 llre?� AST +'�� '��SiX1�ZrTia�v 13oTES t ry 3�,Yiop� The sewage disposal system is to be constructed as specified by the permit 0 or attached plans and specifications ❑ . This sewage disposal system construction permit Is null and void If (a) conditions are changed from those shown on the application (b) condi- tions are changed from those shown on the construction permit. No part of any installation shall be covered or used until inspected, corrections made if necessary, and approved, by the local health department or unless expressly authorized by the local health dept. Any part of any installation which has been covered prior to approval shall be uncov- ered, if nate ary, u n the direction of the Department, 0 Date: S Issued by: This Construction Sanita an Per it Va'd until Date: In � lb —U � Reviewed by: ----------------------------------------------- Supervisory San -tarts---------------------------- -- If FHA or VA financing Reviewed by Date Date Supervisory Sanitarian C.H.S. 202a Revised &84 Regional Sanitarian 65 § 165-26 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-26. Accessory uses. § 165-26 Secondary uses that are normally or typically found in association with the allowed primary use shall be allowed on the same parcel or lot as the primary use. A. Agricultural accessory uses. The selling or processing of agricultural products produced on the premises shall be considered to be accessory to an agricultural use. On bona fide, operating farms, temporary or permanent housing for workers actively working on the farm shall be an allowed accessory use. B. Accessory dwellings. One (1) accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any single-family dwelling as long as the following conditions are met: (1) The floor area of the accessory dwelling shall be no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross floor area of the primary residential structure on the lot. (2) In the RP Residential Performance, MH1 Mobile Home Community and R4 Residential Planned Community Districts, accessory dwellings shall only be allowed if they are attached to the primary residential structure. (3) In no case shall a mobile home be allowed as an accessory dwelling in the RP Residential Performance District, R4 Residential Planned Community District and R5 Residential Recreational Community District. [Amended 6-9-19931 C. Dwellings in a business. One (1) accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any business or.industrial use only so long as it is occupied by the owner of the business or industry, an employee or a watchman. D. Child day-care services. Child day-care services and facilities shall be allowed in the M1 Light Industrial District as an accessory use to any allowed use or group of allowed uses in an industrial park. [Added 8-8-1990] E. In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use, unless it is used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm. [Added 6-9-1993] 16530 10-25-93 0 P/C Review Date: 3/16/94 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #001-94 WOODSIDE ESTATES LOCATION: West and adjacent to Route 641, approximately 0.25 miles south of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86-A-20 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Land Use -- residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) and RA (Rural Areas) - land use, residential, agriculture, construction company, and church PROPOSED USE: 66 Single family detached homes REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation• No overall objections to the master development plan for this development. However, the stub street to the adjacent Charles W. Racey property could have an impact on the street and pavement design if the Racey property is ever developed. Also, this project and the potential development of other adjacent properties could affect the current capacity of the portion of Route 641 and Route 277. Before making any final comments we will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the ITE Trilo Generation Manual 4th Edition for review. Before starting any work on the State's right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Fire Marshal: As submitted, this plan will satisfy the requirements of Frederick County Code, Chapter 10, for single family dwelling subdivisions. FO Sanitation Authority: No comments. County Engineer: We recommend that the existing pond and drainage ditches be evaluated for adequacy during the subdivision design phase. We suggest that "C" valves of 0.35 and 0.5 be adopted for pre and post development drainage studies. Parks & Recreation: requirements. Planning & Zoning: Density Plan appears to meet open space The density for the Woodside Estates master development plan is 2.3 units per acre, which is less than the maximum density allowed in the RP zoning district. MDP Informational Requirements Developments containing only single-family detached housing require 25% of the gross acreage be in dedicated open space. This plan indicates that 7.15 acres (25.08%) will be in dedicated open space. The plan indicates that no acreage falls within the floodplain, natural retention areas, or steep slopes. There are 4.3 acres in woodlands and 1.07 acres (24.88%) will be disturbed, which falls just under the Zoning Ordinance limit of no more than 25% disturbance. The staff would like assurances that no more than 25% of the woodlands will be disturbed when lots within the wooded area are developed. This can be in the form a of typical section for the lots that are being created in the woodland areas. Construction for this project will be done in one phase. Design Comments The Zoning Ordinance requires a full road efficiency buffer of 80 feet along collector roads or a reduced buffer of 50 feet if a full screen is provided. This plan indicates a 50 foot road efficiency buffer with a full screen situated on a 6 -foot high berm north of the subdivision entrance along Route 641. However, the plan does not indicate the buffer on the south side of the subdivision entrance. The ordinance requires three species of plants, with the majority being evergreens and at least one-third being deciduous. It also requires 3 they be planted at a density of three trees per ten linear feet. This needs to be made clear on the plan. The plan needs to show the metes and bounds of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 3/16/94 PC MTG • Approval, with all staff, review agency and Planning Commission comments being adequately addressed. PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: Woodside Estates 2. Location of property: West & Adjacent to Rte 641 approx. 0.25 miles south of the Intersection of Rte 277 & Rte 641 behind the Jamesway Shopping Center 3. Total area of property: 28 Acres + 4. Property ID # (14 Digit): 86-A-20 5. Property zoning and present use: Residential 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: RA (Agriculture Construction Co, Church & Residential) RP (Residential) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family Detached 8. Magisterial District: Opeauon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original_X Amended APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: February 18, 1994 Application # OWNERS NAME: Jasbo Inc. & Fred L. Glaize III P.O. Box 6 Stephens City. VA 22655 Jim Bowman & Fred L. Glaize III (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) AGENT: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc Address: 200 N. Cameron St Winchester Va 22601 Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: same Contact Name: Tom Price General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes—X— 0 No Scale Yes—X— 0 No Legend Yes 0 No_X_ Boundary Survey Yes—X— 0 No Total Area Yes _X_ No Topography Yes _X_ No Project Title Yes_X_ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes_X_ No Applicant Name Yes_X_ No 2. Number of phases proposed? ONE (1) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes No— X- 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes—X— No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes—X— No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes—X— No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes—X— No 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Lakes and ponds —.5 _ 0 —.5 Natural retention areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15% or more) 0 0 0 Woodlands _4.3_ _1.07_ _1.7_ 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes _X_ No Entrances Yes_X No Parking areas Yes — No X Utilities (mains) Yes_X_ No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes_X_No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No X Residential Uses If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED - 10,000 TO 12.000 SF 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes No Acreage in each housing type Yes _X_ X_ No Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes—k— No Total acreage Yes No Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X_ _X_ No 3. What percentage of the total site -is to be placed in common open space? 25% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes No—X- 5. oX5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? NONE REQUIRED 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No—X- 7. oX 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes—X— No 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes—X— No, 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes—X— No ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a road from the re- quested property. The applicant is required to obtain the follow- ing information on each adjoining property including the 14 digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. Name: Randall R. Ritenour Address: 548 Double Church Road Stephens City Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86 -A -20A Name: Valley Bible Church Trustees Address: 5615 Ridgefield Ave Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86 -A -20B Name: E.R. Neff Excavating Inc Address: P.O. Box 1027 Stephens City Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86-A-75 Name: James L. Bowman Address: P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86-A-72 Name: Joel 0. Lucita M. Stowe Address: 2725 Valley Ave Winchester Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86-A-21 Name: Charles W. Racev Address: 387 Ewinas Lane Stephens City Va 22655 Property I,D.#: 85-A-140 Name: Anthony C. Dixon Address: 5598 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-22 Name: Claude C. Moran, Jr. Address: 130 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-23 Name: Mildred Hawthorne Address: 5576 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-24 Name: George R. Rotenberry Address: 231 Moore Dr., S.E. Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-25 Name: Alberto D. & Sherry A. Pinto Address: 136 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-26 Name: Beverlev E. & Helen M. Teets Address: 138 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-27 Name: James T. & Jevvifer J. Alkire Address: 140 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-28 c Name: Betty G. Williams Address: 142 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85_B_-1-29 Name: Calvin Reid Tomblin, Jr Address: 144 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens Citv, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-30 Name: Judith C. Curbow Address: 5520 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-31 Name: Shelby Frazier, c/o Shelby Knight Address: P.O. Box 703 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-32 Name: David M. Lewis Address: 150 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-33 Name: David L. & Gail F. Shanholtz Address: 152 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-34 Name: Eva M. Blv Address: 154 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens Citv, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-35 Name: Winter L. Smith Address: (5466 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-36 Name: Gary F. Allen Address: 158 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-37 Name: Neil T. Allen Address: 5/50 Meadowbrook Dr. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 85B-1-38 COUNTY ofFREDERICK Dcpartmcnt of Planning and Dcvclopmcnt 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 NIEMORANaU1Vi', TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director�7 RE: Informal Discussion; Proposed Rezoning DATE: February 17, 1994 Attached is a letter from Delmer Robinson notifying the County of the desire of the C. L. Robinson Corporation to rezone approximately 16 acres, located on the south side of Route 50 west, at the intersection with Route 803. The parcel is currently zoned RA; the proposed use would be the local headquarters of VDOT. This would require B-3 zoning. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please let me know. KCT/slk attachment 1) North I-OU(JoUn Strcct P.O. 13o\ 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchcstcr, V.A 2260=1 Post Office Box 2138 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703/662 - 3869 February 15, 1994 Mr. Kris C. Tierney Deputy Planning Director County of Frederick P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Tierney, I f�f�,1 IES LeC The Virginia Department of Transportation wishes to purchase approximately sixteen acres of land located between U.S. Route 50 and State Route 803 approximately one mile west of the Winchester City Limits. A plat of the area involved is enclosed. This sixteen acres is a portion of a twenty nine acre parcel located between Route 50 and Route 803 which is currently zoned A-2. It is our understanding that to meet the uses that VDOT would need to operate that a B-3 zoning would be necessary, This letter is to inform you of this impending transaction in order to expedite the rezoning process. Yours very truly, C. L. ROBINSON CORPORATION Delmer Robinson, Jr. DRj r/brs Encl 33 �VA ............. .50 .0ts b 10 0 , _,7 36'554 - fT TZ, t76- F . ....... .... .. . . ........... ilw Rail re (ow 77� ca� . / TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: COUNTY of 1;RFDFRICK Department of Planning Anel Developmcnt MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Subdivision Proposal, Mr. Ray Robinson, Jr. February 28, 1994 703 % 665-5651 Fax 703/ 678-0682 Mr. Ray Robinson, Jr. has requested that he be allowed to present a proposal to the Commission concerning a lot that he owns located along Apple Valley Road (Route 652). This lot is identified by PIN# 63-A-53 and is zoned Residential Performance (RP). It is a nonconforming lot as it now stands because it has two dwellings on 1.13 acres and does not meet the required RP lot size for lots without public sewer and water. These dwellings are served by individual septic systems and are both hooked to public water (from City of Winchester) coming out of Plainfield Heights subdivision. Mr. Robinson also owns a small tract of 12,239 square feet that adjoins this property (designated parcel "E" on tax map extract) and he desires to consolidate this tract with the 1.13 acre tract if it is possible to divide the larger tract. Mr. Robinson desires to divide the 1.13 acre tract consolidated with the 12,239 square foot tract, into two lots of approximately equal sizes. In order to do this, the following waivers to ordinance requirements would be necessary: 1. Section 165-65 A., Zoning Ordinance : This requires RP lots without public sewer and water to be 100,000 square feet in size. If the two tracts were combined and divided equally, each would consist of approximately 30,731 square feet. 2. Section 144-24 C., Subdivision Ordinance: This requires that all RP lots abut and have direct access to a state maintained street. If this property is divided into two lots, one of them would not abut a state maintained street and would be accessed by a private drive right-of-way across the other lot. Approval of this request would remove one nonconforming issue, two dwellings on same lot, and create another in that the rear lot would not abut a state maintained street. A condition of approval should require that the right-of-way to the rear lot would be designated as an "exclusive" right-of-way for use by this one lot and for no other use in the future. A more severe option requiring that public sewer be extended to the lots is a possibility. 1) North I,OLIdOLIn SIrCCt P.O. Bkl\ x,01 Winchcstcr. VA 21-1601 windicstcr. VA 22604 Page -2- R. Robinson, Jr. February 28, 1994 Staff would recommend approval of this request since this would allow the applicant flexibility in the use of the property and would partially eliminate the nonconforming use. WWM/slk attachments RAY ROBINSON, JR. 508 Princess Court Winchester, Virginia 22601 February 24, 1994 Mr. W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Admn. Frederick County Planing & Devel. 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Sir: My name is Ray Robinson, Jr. I am the owner of Lot E containing 1.13 acres and shown on the attached surveyor's plat. There are two residences located on this lot and it is my desire to divide the lot and have separate deeds to each residence. Each residence has its own approved septic field and each is served by a separate public water line feeding from Plainfield Heights. These houses were located here approximately 18 years ago. On my attached sketch, I am showing the divided lots as "A" and "B" with Lot A fronting on Route 652, Apple Valley Road. In 1979 I purchased additional land (shaded area) containing 12,239 square feet. It is my desire to add this portion to lot "B". I would like to have this plan submitted to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please advise if further information is required. Sincerely yours, Ray Rbb'inson,� Jr. Parbrier RR/ghh 00 Ln N d' Plainfield Heights 110' Farm Equipment Building Frame Gq House 1 i Brick - N House N I I I 121.9' \. w \� o 122.7' U U N N r O k 17� Valley Road Rt • 52 Pple_---�"-J BOOK 2�)'7 PACE 352 ►"A t, Z 3 OTHER LAND = t O IRON PIN IRON PI 1 N 20' 10' E- 462.58' w w °c ' 0 = O NO 0 06 1.13 AC. ;'OCD o ` c0 rnt z- - w S 20° "W - C- RON PIN N T. BEG. I I IRON PIN z til I CO — Q h LOT - F LOT - G I LOT - H I LOT -I QJ Cr I I I The above Plat is a Surrey of the Eastern Portion of the Lot "B• conveyed to Clyde Logan by Deed dated 1 June 1943 in Deed Book 187 page 204- The said Portion fronts the Northern Boundary Line of Rte 652, just west of its intersection with the Valley Pike - U. 3. 11, at Iternstown, and lies in Shawnee District, Frederick County, Virginiat Beginning at an iron pin in the northern boundary line of Rt- 652, a corner to the Lot F fronting the Valley Pike, running with the said northern boundary line of Rt, 652 - N 80o W - 110.00 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Retained Fortionj thence with the eastern line Of the said Other Land N M0 101 E - 462.58 ft. to an iron pin in the southern line of the Plainfield Heights Lotej thence with the said line S 690 521 E - 110.00 ft. to an iron pin corner to Lot I fronting the Valley Pike{ thence with the western lines of Lots I, R, f} & F - S 200 221 25* V - 443,22 ft. to the beginning. Containing - - 1.13 Acres. m A. EBERT, Certified Land Surve�ror# Surveyed - - - February 7, 1964° Comm- of Virginia # 484 . WRGINIA FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. Q I h Instrument of wrirtng was Produced to me on the aR�l anT of . I- 1 6LL at b , and with certific a f ackn9wiedgrnent thereto annexed wqs}" to record F - -- — C It f eek, Y v 18C / 19A 1. 103 N _ ne 102 18 / p< • 706 20 4 18B Opequon Church Laie too > } N N 25 " �� s •s 28 39 J 29 �o / 226-219 30 �f 31 �� ~ 32 See � 38 33 99 34 96 E 6A 40 _ 37 36 s -V 110C ►3 14 is ry oh 274-211 Dry fo rr 4m^� �2 2 B c 93 4 2r 20 �9 ►a f 9 poh ^ 8 All. 52A7 s 4 ' 92 LO S$ 54 58 �c co�o�- N 89 � v U-)EOEn 56 3-9 89A �ooa 88 87 322-362 BM 756 87A 386-339 8 0 5 7 X- �8 >> Ary 76 00 ,, 86 61 \ 6 BM 53 .. ubdivision 63—A-53 oy Robinson COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: 1994 Primary Road Improvement Plan DATE: February 16, 1994 Each year, Frederick County Officials attend a preallocation hearing for the Staunton District. This hearing allows localities to inform VDOT officials of their various needs for primary road improvements. The proposed 1994 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County mirrors the 1993 plan. This plan maintains the same priority for primary road improvements, and does not include new projects. Frederick County has received the revised Commonwealth Transportation Board Final Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 1993-1994. This document addresses four projects that fall within Frederick County's boundary. Two of the four projects are included on the 1994 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan. The creation of a four lane primary arterial segment of Route 522 South of Winchester has received funding for preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction. This project is scheduled to receive funding until completion. Modifications to the Route 37/Route 11 North interchange have received allocations for preliminary engineering. Other improvements that are not included in the 1994 Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan include the completion of the Interstate 81 weigh station near Middletown and improvements to the CSX railroad crossing on Route 11 north of Winchester. The Transportation Committee reviewed the proposed 1994 Primary Road Improvement Plan during their regular meeting of February 1, 1994. The Transportation Committee recommended unanimous approval of this plan. The recommendations of the Transportation Committee and Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition. EAW/slk attachment 9 North I oudoun Strect P.O. Bk)K 001 Winchc,,;tcr, VA 22001 Winchester, VA 22604 'L J 1994 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1) Route 522 South (East of Winchester) From: Route 50/17 East Intersection To: Route 277 East Intersection (North of Double Toll Gate) Improve to four lanes and provide intersection improvements as necessary to coordinate with Route 37 extension and Route 277 improvements. The improvements should begin at the southern end and proceed northward. 2) I-81/11 North/37/661 Intersection (North of Winchester) Implement corridor improvement plans resulting from Winchester Area Transportation Study to deal with immediate deficiencies. 3) Eastern By-pass/loop From: Route 37 North at Stephenson To: Route 37 South at Kernstown Plan, engineer, acquire necessary right-of-way, ,and construct a by-pass to provide future additional limited access arterial capacity east of Winchester. This is needed to accommodate planned land use and economic development in Eastern Frederick County. This will include long term solutions to interchange areas at 1-81 /11 North/37/661 and I-81/11 South/37/642. 4) Route 277 (East of Stephens City) From: I-81/277/647 Intersection (South of Winchester) To: Route 340/522 South Intersection (East of Double Toll Gate) Improve the existing two lane road facility by widening and straightening immediately. Conduct detailed studies to determine future needs for four lane improvements and improvements to the I-81/11 South/277/647 intersection area. Page -2- 1994 Primary Road Improvement Plan 5) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester) A. Route 11 South From: Middle Road To: 37 Interchange Widen and improve to five lanes. B. Route 11 North From: Winchester City Limits To: 37 Intersection Widen and improve as necessary. 6) I-81 (East of Winchester) From: Stephenson Interchange To: Middletown Interchange Study and improve to six lanes between Winchester exits if necessary. r IF 0, ( c � 67i 7 P sn L ttq gZ �> G � 609 1500c c Jorn�n Gare 688 ain or G` 66.9 Bei V- 255 739' � G t G�2Q' �'�� LBrucetown '� y 6Ce t1 Naln Clear Brook C-3�t� a Hoyfiel �� C yV Qi h 7� Albtna., JC Ems' �:Cr A V :37 �� ✓n ST`a,n INCH TER .e o� 600 �Q �0 .�. \ \ ��. 7 )► ' .• \ btoms eek / oc 606 3 , m F0i1 JC 622 �Q Q 6aa1 tir 0 y rY pulp, � � FCIO c 55 OJ creek 4` �`' '�•_ �ta � � Y opo ry COUP F 631 to hens GEORGE�� Clty U NATIONALL FOR FORE $oa Ged Al goo "Q v� t 627 'b N g_ O A H Middletown 66 81 W A R E N COUNTY N 1994 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA COUNTY OI FRF_Dl TRICK Il l L Department of-Planninudiel Dcvelopment 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 078-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II `L RE: RP (Residential Performance) District Gross Density and Residential Separation Buffers DATE: March 7, 1994 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) met with representatives of the Top of Virginia Builders Association in November 1993, to discuss the above referenced items. During that meeting, it was agreed that a new density scale would be created for the Residential Performance District and that language would be created for interior residential separation buffers. The Board of Supervisors directed the DRRS to finalize language based on the discussion from that meeting and forward it to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Included with this memorandum is a copy of the proposed amendments pertaining to the overall gross density in the RP District. The purpose of these amendments is to revise the existing "sliding scale". The current "sliding scale" for RP gross density permits a maximum gross density (number of units) based on the total acreage of the proposed development. The problem that has been identified with this procedure is that large tracts of land can include 100% multi- family housing types. There is language in the statement of intent that allows the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deny preliminary master development plans containing more than 50% multifamily housing types. However, past experience has shown that denial is difficult to justify if the adjoining properties are predominately multifamily, or if there is sufficient separation from other housing types. Staff believes that the proposed language will assist in the reduction of overall gross density for multifamily developments while still allowing developers the opportunity to create marketable developments. The proposed "sliding scale" and permitted multifamily dwelling percentages were discussed with and agreed upon by the Top of Virginia Builders Association. `) Norlli hn dorm Slice[ P ( ). P, \, N) I winchcacr. v"A 22001 winchc�slcr. `A -,,i 11-t Page -2- Gross Density Memo March 7, 1994 Since that meeting, staff has revised the proposed language slightly. This modification involves the creation of an overall gross density for developments that are between 10 and 100 acres. The former language was not specific in the gross density for developments between 25 and 50 acres and for developments over 50 acres in size. The proposed multifamily dwelling percentages were not revised as a result of this modification. Staff has discussed this modification with representatives of the Top of Virginia Builders Association. At this time there is no overall objection to the proposed revision; however, the Top of Virginia would like the opportunity to formally respond. Staff would like to take the opportunity to informally discuss this proposed language during the March 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. This will provide an opportunity to receive comments and address concerns. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendments during the public hearing portion of the April 6, 1994 meeting. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 165 RP, Residential Performance District and Supplementary Use Regulations 165-58 Intent C. It is the intent of this Article to allow a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Within this Article, the permitted multifamily development percentages and densities are identified. Multifamily housing types are allowed only when they adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The preliminary master development plan shall specify the amount and percentages of all proposed housing types. The preliminary master development plan requires specific approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. NOTE.- This language has not be revised since the November meeting. The DRRS and the Top of Virginia felt that this language was appropriate. 165-62 Gross Density A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section: A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels of land. B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved master development plan exceed ten (10) dwellings per acre. C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved master development plan which contains more than ten (10) acres and less than one -hundred (100) acres exceed five and one-half (5.5) dwellings per acre. D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved master development plan which contains more than one hundred (100) acres exceed four (4) dwellings per acre. NOTE: The language within this section is commonly referred to as the "sliding scale" for overall gross density in the RP District. This section has been amended to reflect the reduction in density which was discussed and agreed upon through worksessions with the Top of Virginia Builders Association. The existing "sliding scale" provides a gross density for developments that are 25 acres, 50 acres and 100 acres. The proposed amendments establish a density for developments that are between 10 and 100 acres. 165-62.1 Multifamily Housing A. Developments that are less than twenty-five (25) acres in size may include more than fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types. B. Developments that are more than twenty-five (25) acres and less than fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types. C. Developments that are over fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to forty percent (40%) multifamily housing types. NOTE: This language has been created to establish a maximum percentage of multifamily dwellings that are permitted within any development. This language permits the 100% multifamily housing developments on lots that are less than twenty five acres in size. * Staff has included copies of the current language within the Zoning Ordinance. Page 16579 provides the language for the statement of intent, while pages 16581 and 16582 depict the gross density requirements ("sliding scale"). § 165-58 ZONING § 165-58 R. 1A/'thin thic article, a number of general perfor i once requirements are identified. When a housing development has satisfied these require- ments, this Article is intended to provide a large degree of flexibility in development and housing design. This design process is accomplished through a master development plan which is designed in cooperation with the county staff and Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The layout, phasing, density and intensity of development is determined through the adoption of the master plan by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. C. It is the intent of this Article to allow a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Master plans containing more than fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types are allowed only where they adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The inclusion of more than fifty percent (50%) multifamily housing types must be stated in the preliminary master development plan and requires specific approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. D. While a mixture of housing types is allowed on a site. the intent is to use the master development plan and the other Article regulations to place the different housing types on the site in a way that will protect the living environment of the new residents and the existing surrounding neighborhood. It is the intention of this Article to clearly separate existing developments from new developments with different housing types. This Article attempts to encourage the provision of some amenities through density bonuses which are intended to enhance the development without increasing housing costs. E. Streets shall be provided in new developments to continue existing and planned street patterns and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, county thoroughfare plan and road improvement plans where appropriate. Adverse impacts on existing developments shall be minimized: and, where possible, the use. as through streets for new development, of existing streets which serve limited residential areas shall be avoided. Streets and rights-of-way in proposed developments, intended to be developed in the future, shall be clearly designated to take into account future development as indicated in the Comprehen- sive Plan. 16579 § 165-59 ZONING § 165-62 (10) Temporary model homes used for sale of properties in a residential development. § 165-60. Conditional uses. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: A. Convalescent and nursing homes. B. Cottage occupations, as defined. C. Nationally chartered fraternal lodges or civic clubs, social centers and their related club facilities. with an approved site plan, meeting the requirements of this chapter and with the following conditions: (1) All principal activities shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. (2) All outdoor facilities shall be incidental to the principal facility or activity. (3) No facility or activity shall be erected or conducted less than thirty (30) feet from any residential district or area within other districts which are predominantly residential in nature. D. Day-care facilities. E. Rooming houses, boardinghouses and tourist homes. § 165-61. Number of uses restricted. More than one (1) principal structure or use and its customary accessory structures or uses are permitted in the RP Residential Performance District for duplexes. multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link townhouses and garden apartments. § 165-62. Gross density. A gross density shall be established for each proposed development. including all land contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some �- 16581 § 165-62 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-63 11 developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section: A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels of land. B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within a master development plan exceed ten (10) dwellings per acre. C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within a master development plan which contains more than twenty-five (25) acres within an approved master development plan exceed eight (8) units per acre. D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within a master development plan which contains more than fifty (50) acres within an approved master development plan exceed six (6) units per acre. E. In no case shall the gross density of any development within a master development plan which contains more than one hundred (100) acres within an approved master development plan exceed four (4) units per acre. § 165-63. Open space requirements. A. A minimum percentage of the gross area of any proposed development shall be designated as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for the common use of residents of the development. Such open space shall be dedicated to a property owners' association or to Frederick County. Open space shall be dedicated to Frederick County only with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. Developments which contain any of the following housing types shall provide open space as specified below- Minimum elow Minimum Required Type of Open Space Development (percent) Developments containing only single-family 0 detached traditional or traditional rural hous- ing 16582 165-37C. Residential Separation Buffers Perimeter and interior residential separation buffers shall be established to adequately buffer single-family detached traditional and cluster dwellings from other housing types. The function of the perimeter separation buffer shall be to adequately separate different housing types within adjoining developments, while the interior separation buffer shall adequately separate different housing types within mixed-use developments. The requirements for perimeter and interior residential separation buffers are as follows: (1) Perimeter single-family separation buffers * Maintain the current language. (2) Perimeter apartment or multiplex separation buffers * Maintain the current language. (3) Interior residential separation buffers (a) This buffer shall be designated as a continuous landscaped easement that will be placed between single-family detached traditional and cluster dwellings and other housing types. This landscaped easement shall be at least ten (10) feet in depth and contain a double row of evergreen trees. Each row of evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at time of planting and spaced no more than eight (8) feet apart. If natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the function of an interior separation buffer, the requirement may be waived by the Planning Commission. * Staff has provided copies of the current language for residential separation buffers. The proposed language defines the difference between perimeter and interior residential separation buffers and provides requirements for interior residential separation buffers. § 165-37 C FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-37 (2) Full screen. A full screen provides all the elements of a landscape screen and also includes a six -foot -high, opaque hedge. fence, wall, mound or berm. A woodland strip of fifty (50) feet may be allowed as a full screen. As with landscape screens, if natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the functions of the full screen, the requirement may be waived by the Planning Commission, and the requirement may be changed to maintain highway sight distances. (3) Wherever proposed developments are adjacent to existing uses. the Planning Commission may require additional landscaping or landscaped easements to separate different uses and to achieve the intentions of this section. Residential separation buffers. (1) Single-family separation buffers. (a) Wherever possible and practical, single-family detached traditional and cluster structures shall not be placed adjacent to other types of residential lots or structures. If other types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to single-family detached traditional and cluster dwellings, the following buffers are required: Distance Buffer Required Inactive Active Screening (Minimum) (Maximum) Total Provided (feet) (feet) (feet) Full screen 75 25 100 Landscape screen 150 50 200 No screen 350 50 400 (b) Buffers shall be placed between the lot line of the lot containing the single-family detached traditional and cluster structures or lots designated by an approved master development plan as single-family lots and the non -single- family structures. 16560 § 165-37 ZONING § 165-37 (2) Apartment or multiplex separation buffers. (a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments and multiplex structures shall not be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures. If other types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to garden apartment or multiplex structures. the following buffers are required: Distance Buffer Required Inactive Active Screening (Minimum) (Maximum) Total Provided (feet) (feet) (feet) Full screen 75 25 100 Landscape screen 150 50 200 No screen 350 50 400 (b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment or multiplex structures and the lot line of the lots containing the other housing types. D. .Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in certain different zoning districts. (1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according to the categories in the following tables -.13 (a) Buffer categories: Distance Buffer Required Inactive Active Screening (Minimum) (Maximum) Total Category Provided (feet) (feet) (feet) A Full screen — — — A Landscape screen — — — A No screen 25 25 50 B Full screen 25 25 50 B Landscape screen 75 25 100 BEditor s Note_ The buffer category example diagrams are located at the end of this chapter. 16561