HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 12-15-99 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
DECEMBER 15, 1999
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) November 3, 1999 Minutes ........................................... A
2) Application Action Summary ........................................... B
3) Committee Reports ............................................... (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................(no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Master Development Plan #04-99 of Lexington Court, submitted by Painter -Lewis,
P.L.C. This property is located on Fairfax Pike (Route 277), 0.9 miles east of I-81, and is
identified with Property Identification Number 86-5-B in the Opequon Magisterial District.
(Mr. Mohn)........................................................0
6) Waiver Request from the driveway alignment requirement for motor vehicle access for the
proposed Michael G. Prelip office complex in the Commonwealth Business Center.
(Ms.Lohr)........................................................ D
7) Waiver Request from the lot access requirement, Section 1444-24.C(2)b. of the
Subdivision Ordinance, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. on behalf of Satian Enterprises,
Inc. to permit the location of multi -family housing in excess of 500 feet from a state -
maintained road. This property is located at the intersection of Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659)
and Brookland Lane (Rt. 658) and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-2-1
in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mr. Mohn).........................................................E
14
DISCUSSION ITEM
8) Joint Discussion with Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
regarding the provisions for access to loading areas.
(Mr. Ruddy) .........................................................F
9) Other
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
This meeting was held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent
Street in Winchester, Virginia on November 3, 1999.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice -Chairman/
Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; W.
Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine,
Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; and Vincent
DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director/Secretary; Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning
Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; Amy M. Lohr, Planner 1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPLICATIONS ACTION SUMMARY
Chairman DeHaven accepted the report for the Commission's information.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional Use Permit #18-99 of Michael M. Milam for an expansion of his landscape contractors'
business and garden center (Ref: previously approved CUP #012-97). This property is located at
2186 Northwestern Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 52 -A -B in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Predenck County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 431
-2 -
Chairman DeHaven said that he would abstain froin discussion and voting on this application
due to a possible conflict of interest. He then turned the chair over to Vice -Chairman Marker.
Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Planner I, read the background information and review agency
comments. Mr. Cheran said that the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) is for an expansion of a previously
approved landscape contracting and garden center, referenced as CUP #012-97. He explained that this
expansion is for an additional 9,600 square feet of open and enclosed display areas, and outdoor storage areas
located toward the front of the property, adjacent to Northwestern Pike.
Mr. Cheran continued, stating that a land use plan, tailored to the Round Hill Community, has
been developed as a part of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and recommends that visual disruption
to the Route 50 corridor be minimized by controlling the size, location, and number of signs. Mr. Cheran stated
that staff is recommending limiting the number of business signs to one and limiting a maximum of 50 square
feet in area to achieve this objective. Mr. Cheran also noted that an engineered site plan will be required for
the proposed expansion.
Commission.
Mr. Michael M. Milam, the applicant, was available to answer questions from the
There were no public comments and no issues of concern were raised by the Commission.
Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional use Permit #18-99 of Michael M. Milam for a Landscape Contractor's Business and
Garden Center at 2186 Northwestern Pike with the following conditions:
All review agency comments must be complied with at all times.
2. An engineered site plan shall be approved by the County.
3. One (1) business sign shall be allowed along Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50); this sign shall be limited to
a maximum of fifty (50) square feet in area.
4. Any expansion of use or change of use would require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Conditional Use Permit #24-99 of Rhoda Kriz to establish a Bed & Breakfast as a Cottage
Occupation. This property is located at 547 Apple Pie Ridge Road and is identified with P.I.N. 42-
A-206 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Ms. Amy M. Lohr, Planner I, read the background information and review agency comments.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 432
-3 -
In addition, Ms. Lohr stated that the proposed use will take place in the existing house and the applicant has
identified three rooms which would be rented in association with the bed and breakfast operation. She further
stated that in evaluating the site, it was evident that the dwelling in which the business will occur is adequately
screened from all adjoining properties by mature vegetation, and, in addition, the dwelling is located
approximately 800' from the Apple Pie Ridge Road right-of-way.
Ms. Rhoda W. Kriz, the applicant, was available to answer questions from the Commission.
There were no public comments.
No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. They believed that the
proposed use would not impact the existing community in a negative manner.
Upon motion made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #24-99 of Rhoda W. Kris for a Cottage Occupation to operate a Bed and
Breakfast at 547 Apple Pie Ridge Road with the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with cottage occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may not exceed
four (4) square feet in area.
No more than three bedrooms shall be utilized for the bed and breakfast operation.
4. Any expansion of the bed and breakfast shall require a new conditional use permit.
Conditional Use Permit #25-99 of Andrew Reh to establish a Cottage Occupation for an Ice
Sculpting business. This property is located at 8068 Valley Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 91-1-A
in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Ms. Amy M. Lohr, Planner I, read the background information and review agency comments.
Ms. Lohr stated that this application is to allow a cottage occupation within an accessory structure and,
specifically, will allow one non-resident employee, the applicant, to operate an ice sculpting business from an
existing garage. She continued, stating that the adjoining properties appear to be adequately separated from
the location of the proposed use and the garage is located approximately 40' from the Route 11 right-of-way.
Ms. Lohr stated that there will be no excessive noise or odor resulting from the operation. She said that there
will be no retail element on the site, however, occasionally, a service truck will deliver ice to the site.
Mr. Andrew Reh, the applicant, and Mr. Harold Gardenhour, the owner, were available to
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 433
-4 -
answer questions from the Commission.
There were no public comments.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Reh said that he would be adding a self-
contained refrigerator inside of the garage for ice storage. Mr. Reh said that he anticipates his services to be
used by restaurants and hotels in the metro area.
No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. Based on the limited scale of
the proposed business, the Commission believed that the business could operate without significant impact on
adjoining properties.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #25-99 of Andrew Reh for a Cottage Occupation to operate an ice
sculpting business at 8068 Valley Pike with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with cottage occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may not exceed
four (4) square feet in area.
No additional employees shall be permitted.
4. No retail sales shall occur on-site.
5. Any expansion of the approved cottage occupation shall require a new conditional use permit.
UPDATE OF THE 2000-2001 FREDERICK COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Recommended Approval
Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator, presented the 2000-2001 Secondary Road
Improvement Plan Update to the Commission. Mr. Ruddy stated that the Transportation Committee reviewed
the annual update at their October meeting and forwarded a recommendation of approval with some minor
changes. He next reviewed each of the major sections of the plan and briefly discussed the highlights of each
section with the Commission.
Mr. Jerry Copp, Mr. Norman Sparks, Mr. Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., and Mr. Steve Mehiikoff;
all of the Virginia Department of Transportation, were available to answer questions from the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 434
-5 -
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Ms. Marie Straubaugh, a resident along Senseny Road, inquired about the improvements for
the area of Greenwood Road/ Sulphur Springs to Route 50 and the other end of Greenwood Road. She said
that both of these roads were very dangerous.
Mr. Norman Sparks said that the Rt. 655/Rt. 656 Project would be the same concept as Route
656 to the north, which involves reconstruction from Senseny Road all the way to Route 50. Regarding the
north end of Greenwood, Mr. Sparks said that VDOT is now obtaining right-of-way and hopefully, it will be
advertised around March of 2000.
Members of the Commission were in favor of the plan as presented, and upon motion made
by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval ofthe 2000-2001 Secondary Road Improvement Plan including the addition ofthe bridge over Route
669 for the structural improvement engineering study as Item #4.
(Note: Mr. Ours arrived at approximately this point in the meeting.)
Rezoning Application #15-99 of Channing Drive, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone
354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 22.0 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). The property is located on the north side of Senseny Road,
on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, and Carlisle
Heights subdivisions. The site is identified with P.I.N.s 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213, and 65-A-30, 31,
39, 40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This rezoning application incorporates (and is a
continuance of) the previous applications: Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, Rezoning #06-99 of
Sheppard/Futral, and Rezoning #07-99 of Lynnehaven, which were heard at the March 3, 1999
Planning Commission meeting.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director, said the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider the rezoning of the eight identified parcels on March 3, 1999. He said that the applicant had
requested that the Commission table the application to allow them time to adequately address concerns which
had been raised during the public hearing. Mr. Tierney said that in the time that has ensued, the applicant has
significantly modified the application to include, among other things, a substantial traffic impact analysis.
Mr. Tierney next reviewed each of the issues identified by the Commission, as well as the
responses that had been prepared by the applicant. Those issues included a detailed traffic impact analysis,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 435
review of the traffic analysis by VDOT, access from Senseny Road (Rt. 657) to Berryville Pike (Rt. 7) and
widening of the single -lane bridge adjacent to the McHale property, the phasing of development, the issue of
providing a new elementary school site, and solid waste issues.
Mr. Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors Liaison member, was of the opinion that there should
be a school site in this area, so that children do not have to be bused long distances.
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the design company representing the applicants,
replied that the school site was removed and a dollar amount, $2,628,183.77, was proffered instead, which is
the amount determined by the County's run of the fiscal impact model.
Mr. Tierney explained that initially, there was concern about the size of the site by some, as
well as whether the County was better off getting the cash, as opposed to the 15 acres. He said that when the
school officials looked at the property in detail, they felt that it wasn't entirely suitable; therefore, instead of
offering a school site, the applicant is now proposing to meet our impact model forecast.
Mr. Smith next explained the three scenarios that pertained to the construction of Channing
Drive, which included: 1) the submission of any residential site plan that is adjacent to Channing Drive, then
Channing will be constructed for the length of that section; 2) the first submission of a commercial site plan
will cause construction of Channing Drive from Senseny into the commercial area; and, 3) upon reaching the
475t' unit, Channing has to be built from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road, or no additional residential
permits will be issued by the County until the completion of that segment occurs.
A member of the Commission inquired about the future possibility of a route from Valley Mill
to Berryville Pike. Mr. Smith pointed out a couple obstacles, such as the one -lane bridge and a historic farm.
Mr. Smith next reviewed the levels of service anticipated on various roads.
Members of the Commission expressed concern with the approach used in the traffic analysis
for the initial commercial development. The concern raised was that if a major commercial chain came in the
first or second year, the analysis would not be accurate if only the existing traffic was counted without
including the projected potential build -out of the already zoned and approved areas, including the Channing
Drive development.
(Commissioner Ours left the meeting at approximately this point.)
Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Dick Regan said that he had already met with Mr. Smith, however, he still had numerous
questions, such as: the width of the pavement on Morning Glory Drive; concerns about traffic going east to
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 436
-7 -
Clarke County, the timing of the roads and connections, the future development of the space along the creek;
concern that senior citizens were not properly represented in terms of the number of units; questions about the
proposed trails; the nature of the waste disposal; the proposed locations of stores; and questions concerning
commercial impacts. Mr. Regan strongly recommended against any action by the Commission until these
issues were addressed.
Mr. Blaine Dunn, resident at 115 Bedford Drive, wanted to see the widening of Senseny Road,
especially east to Winchester. He said that the two-lane road creates traffic tie-ups when school buses are
letting off children. Mr. Dunn believed there should be a school site at this location, instead of busing children
elsewhere. He also believed there needed to be recreation areas for the children to play.
Ms. Marie Straub, a resident ofthe Apple Ridge Subdivision off Senseny Road and Secretary
of the Apple Ridge Homeowners Association, encouraged the Planning Commission not to rezone any
additional land until the infrastructure was in place to allow such a rezoning. Ms. Straub was opposed to
making through streets out ofthe two ofthe dead-end streets in her neighborhood, which would connect the new
development with Apple Ridge subdivision. She believed it would lower property values because Apple Ridge
does not have curb and sidewalks. Ms. Straub stated that the timing for the rezoning was bad because the
expansion of Oakdale Crossing had already been approved and it carried no proffers to pay for roads, schools,
or other services. She noted that at full build -out, the Oakdale expansion will bring over 600 new homes with
additional school children and automobiles to the Senseny Road/ Greenwood Road area. Ms. Straub believed
that both those roads were very dangerous and were not designed to handle the traffic they will receive.
Mr. Timothy Koppenhaver, resident at 146 Morning Glory Drive, was not in favor of making
through streets out of Wayfaring Drive and Morning Glory Drive in the Apple Ridge subdivision. He was
opposed because it would significantly increase the traffic in his neighborhood. He added that many of the
adults and children take advantage of the quiet streets by walking, bicycling, jogging and playing.
Ms. Pat Gochenour, resident at 134 Country Club Circle and Vice -President of the Citizens
for a Quality Community (CQC), stated that an uncontrollable situation has been created in Frederick County.
She said that road improvements are needed as a result of the unplanned growth of the numerous subdivisions
off of Senseny Road. Ms. Gochenour inquired about the water source for the proposed development. Ms.
Gochenour believed that the citizens should have more input in the decision-making process. She asked the
Commission not to rezone the 354 acres; she said that no amount of proffers could offset what the Frederick
County leadership has allowed.
Mr. Robert Wells, President of the Top of Virginia Home Builders Association (TOVHBA),
stated that the proposed plan is probably the best representation of smart growth presented to date, which the
builders and developers are in favor of, and the citizens are now demanding. Mr. Wells said that the TOVHBA
has recently established two citizens groups whereby builders, developers, and citizens meet together to discuss
issues concerning water, building, and resources. He announced that a series of events scheduled at
Shenandoah College will take place on a monthly basis.
Mr. Stanley Daywalt, member of the Board of Directors for the Top of Virginia Building
Association, spoke in favor of the development; he said he was stunned, however, by all the hoops the
developers and the builders were willing to jump through to make this project work. Mr. Daywalt said that
the developers and builders associated with this project are local residents --they are not from Washington, D. C.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 437
-8 -
or Fairfax. He said that their children go to school here in Frederick County and they care about the quality
of life here.
Ms. Wanda Giles High said that she whole-heartedly approved of the proposed development.
Ms. Juanita Giles, former owner of the Futral-Sheppherd Farm, stated that she approved of
what the developers and builders were attempting to accomplish with this project.
Ms. Jill Johnson, resident on Morning Glory Drive in the Apple Ridge Subdivision, stated that
there is a traffic problem in her area now and she could not imagine what it would be like if Morning Glory
Drive was a feeder road to one of the new developments. Ms. Johnson requested that Morning Glory Drive
not be converted into a through street, if the rezoning is approved.
Mr. Charles Parker, Frederick County resident, said that he's seen a lot of subdivisions
established that were not planned as well as this one; he believed this was the way a subdivision should be
planned. He said that the builders and developers are proffering the money for this development to pay its own
way and are also offering to participate in solving infrastructure problems. He believed the applicants deserved
the opportunity to construct the proposed development.
Mr. Bob Pownall, resident of the Shawnee District, raised concerns about the school issues.
Mr. Pownall was concerned that for the past three consecutive years, school children have been bused to other
areas of the County. He believed that funding should be available for school construction, for maintenance,
and for teachers' salaries. Mr. Pownall stated that Frederick County residents should not resign themselves
forever to overcrowded classrooms or temporary trailers for classrooms, because it was not a satisfactory
solution.
Miss Dusty Golden, an eighth grader at James Wood Middle School, said that she heard an
estimate that 119 middle school -aged children would be generated by the proposed development. Ms. Golden
said that she has 32 classmates in her classroom this year and her teachers are already overwhelmed. She said
there was not room for any additional students. Ms. Golden believed the community was not ready for this kind
of development and there was no need to add fuel to an already out -of -control fire. Ms. Golden believed that
schools should be constructed first and then afterwards, development could be expanded.
Mr. Charles Pitcock, resident of Frederick Heights, stated that there is already too much traffic
on Senseny Road and there have been some bad accidents and fatalities because Senseny Road is not wide
enough. He was concerned about the water supply; he said there was a water problem this past year and water
had to be rationed. Mr. Pitcock asked who would have to pay for all of this development. He was concerned
that taxes would be increased and he was on a limited income.
Ms. Denise Watson, resident of Pioneer Heights, requested that the Commission delay action
on the rezoning until infrastructure was in place to take care of the residents who currently live in the area.
Ms. Watson was concerned about the traffic and the schools situations. She said that Redbud Elementary
School can not house its own kindergarten and the busing situation needs work. Ms. Watson was concerned
that accreditation of the schools was less than favorable and that classrooms were overcrowded.
Mr. Richard Giles, one of the property owners in this proposal, stated that County Planning
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 438
Officials have requested that growth take place in the eastern part of the County because this is where the
infrastructure is located and the soil in this part of the County is poor for agriculture. Mr. Giles believed that
the good limestone soil on the west side of the County should be reserved for agriculture. In addition, Mr. Giles
said that the schools have been overcrowded for as long as he can remember, however, they are much better
now than they used to be. He stated that this development will pay its way and meet the needs of Frederick
County in the way of controlled growth.
Mr. Edward Ballet said that many of the statements made by citizens about this proposal were
based on emotions; however, he believed that if the facts were studied, it was obvious that this was a well-
planned subdivision. He said that if Frederick County was going to grow sensibly, some sacrifices were going
to have to be made. He commented that the homes in the proposed subdivision will be expensive and they are
not first-time homes. He said that interconnecting roads through subdivisions are for emergency services, not
for people taking short-cuts. He said that no one is going to be taking short cuts through a labyrinth of side
streets when they will be able to use the four lanes on Channing Drive. Mr. Ballet said that these proposed 800
homes will not impact the area tomorrow; but will take ten years to develop. He said that with growth, people
make money; as people make more money, they can afford the finer things in life. Mr. Ballet said that
Frederick County will continue to grow and growth cannot be stopped, however, some people like to use scare
tactics and frighten others about growth. He said that having well -thought-out plans and controlling growth
is what Frederick County needs. Mr. Ballet was very much in support of this development.
Mr. Gregory Bancroft, one ofthe property owners and a Frederick County resident, stated that
he has been a builder in this area for the past ten years. He said that he has two children in Stonewall School
and his partner, who is also a resident of Frederick County, has three children. Mr. Bancroft gave an owner's
perspective of this development and presented a brief history of how this development came about. He
commented that the trend is to have 70% of residential growth within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and
30% outside the UDA; this will help preserve the County's orchards and farmlands. He said that residential
development trends within the County indicate that approximately 600 building pen -nits continue to be issued
each year, regardless if there are 1,000 lots available. Mr. Bancroft stated that their commitment to the
infrastructure is huge; the monetary figures projected by the fiscal impact model are huge. He stated that this
development pays for itself, it is probably the first and only development on Senseny Road that pays for itself.
Mr. Bancroft stated that they have almost gone beyond reason with this project by solving problems that are
not theirs. He commented that there are those who think that the sky is falling on Frederick County and it
certainly isn't. Mr. Bancroft said that he is proud to be a resident of Frederick County and plans to reside here
for the remainder of his life. He said that by accepting this proposal, Frederick County will raise the standards
by which all other developments will come. He added that if a commercial area is placed inside a development,
the traffic will stay within the neighborhood to shop. He commented that right now, all the residents out there
are getting on Senseny Road and driving to Winchester to shop.
Mr. Benjamin Butler, a member of Eastern Frederick Development off of Valley Mill Road,
was representing D & R Construction Company ofwhich Dave Madison and Greg Bancroft are members. Mr.
Butler believed that the proposed plan fits in very well with good planning and the proffers to this County far
exceed what anyone would have seen 30 years ago. He believed the plan should be approved. Mr. Butler said
that Eastern Frederick Development is committed to building a bridge across the creek; they will build it in
cooperation with the Greg Bancroft and Dave Madison proposal. Mr. Butler said that he was available to lend
his support to that effort.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 439
-10 -
Ms. Gina Forrester, Frederick County resident, stated that it wasn't the development plan that
people in the Senseny Road area had a problem with, but the timing of the plan. Ms. Forrester said that land
already rezoned and under construction in the Senseny Road/ Redbud corridor cannot be ignored. She believed
that approving the rezoning was not in the best interest of the citizens and children who live and go to school
in the Senseny Road/ Redbud corridor; she said that their children are assigned to different schools every two
years. She said that parents do not want their children bused to other areas of the County. Ms. Forrester
believed that the Planning Commission and Board should hold off on approving this plan for a few more years.
Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, resident ofthe Stonewall District and former Chairman ofthe Frederick
County Board of Supervisors, said that he does not object to people voicing their opinion on any particular
issue before County agencies; however, when people do speak out, they should be accurate in their facts and
should not try to scare people. Mr. Stiles believed the applicants of this plan have gone above and beyond what
is required, so much so that he wonders how it could be economically feasible. Mr. Stiles believed this plan
represented the culmination of 25 years worth of planning by officials in Frederick County. He said there is
no question that this is the best plan that he has ever seen presented. Mr. Stiles believed that overall, Frederick
County schools are less crowded now than they've ever been. Mr. Stiles also pointed out that Frederick County
did not have a water crises; he said the City of Winchester had a problem, but not Frederick County. Mr. Stiles
said that despite other issues he sometimes has with the Sanitation Authority, the Sanitation Authority does
provide the timely delivery of water and sewer service where and when it's needed. Mr. Stiles concluded by
saying that he was not in support of developers' rights, but he did support property owners' rights; he said that
this property will not be used for farming again.
Mr. Richard Crane, resident of the Stonewall District and President of the Glenmont Village
Homeowners Association, spoke in support ofthe proposed application. Mr. Crane said that the overwhelming
majority of the residents that he has spoken with have the opinion that this land will be developed and they want
to make sure it's developed residentially. Mr. Crane read a portion of Mr. George Giles' editorial in the March
3`d edition ofthe Winchester Star entitled, "What Goes Around Comes Around." Mr. Crane continued, stating
that if someone left Fairfax, Loudoun, or Prince William Counties to get away from growth and then settled
in the Senseny Road corridor, they cannot claim to have done a good job ofhouse-hunting. Mr. Crane believed
that Greenway Engineering had done an excellent job of developing this project. He said there are some matters
still to be worked out, but his taxes are paying for the Commission and staff to see that these things are taken
care of, he was confident that his and other citizens' interests will be properly represented. Mr. Crane stated
that this is a great opportunity for this model project and for the County to have good, quality growth where
everyone knows it is going to come anyway. Mr. Crane said that County planners are doing the right thing by
putting residential areas together, industries together, and putting commercial businesses where they need to
be to serve the citizens.
Mr. Randy Forrester, resident of the Apple Ridge Subdivision, said that he had no objections
to the proposed plan, but it should have been presented ten to 20 years ago. Mr. Forrester believed that the
County's Board of Supervisors didn't see to that, so now the citizens of Frederick County are in the situation
they are today. Mr. Forrester stated that the traffic counts were taken in the summer when people were on
vacation and the schools were closed; Mr. Forrester didn't think this was "worse -case scenario" figures. He
believed this plan would cost the County money, even with the proffers, before funding was available. He
stated that this plan will result in increased development and the need to build additional schools and pay for
increased teachers' salaries. He said that a school should be a part of this plan_ Mr. Forrester asked the
Commission to consider the amount of land already zoned for residential development.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 440
-11 -
Mr. Vaughn Fora, resident on Senseny Road and a member of the Top of Virginia Building
Association, said that the issue of the "timing" of development keeps coming up. He said that no matter if
projects are already zoned or to be rezoned, the facts are that over the past 10 years, Frederick County has
averaged 650 homes built per year, and 30% of those are built outside of the Urban Development Area.
Mr. Wayne Nicholson, resident of the Shawnee District, believed that the TOVHBA
represented the interests of builders and not the citizens of Frederick County. Mr. Nicholson said that he
reviewed the drawings and among other things, was concerned about traffic and schools. He commented about
vehicles from the proposed development traveling down Senseny Road into the City. He asked if the City of
Winchester had commented on this. He wanted to know if the interchanges for Route 37 had been tied down
yet. Mr. Nicholson inquired if the fire and rescue services would be affected; whether the Greenwood Station
would be able to accommodate this development or would a station be needed on Route 7, close to the
elementary school. Mr. Nicholson also inquired if the proffers were legally binding; if the flood plain
calculations were based on current, up-to-date maps; if a location had been reserved for a new elementary
school and a new high school; how much sewage capacity will remain in the sewage treatment plant with all
of the approved lots, the proposed lots, and the proposed business development. He inquired if the sewage
treatment plan would have sufficient capacity or will another plant need to be constructed. He was concerned
about where the money would come from to support all of this development. Mr. Nicholson asked the
Commission to delay approval until the infrastructure was in place to support the development.
Mr. David Rhinehart, resident on Morning Glory Drive, was not in favor of Morning Glory
Drive being converted to a through street. Mr. Rhinehart said there were a lot of unanswered questions
regarding the proposed development and believed the Commission should wait for more answers before voting
on the matter.
Mr. Mark Kaskill, representing Quality Building Products of Frederick County, commented
that schools are crowded everywhere, in every state. He said that as far as traffic is concerned, this plan was
pro -active rather than re -active.
Mr. Michael Wade, a resident ofthe Apple Ridge subdivision, was concerned about the busing
of school children to distant schools. He was not in favor of accepting overcrowded schools as a given.
Mr. Stiles came back to the podium to state that for the past 10-12 years, continuing efforts
have been made, and will continue to be made, to see that our schools are not overcrowded. Mr. Stiles said
that no member of the County government is accepting of overcrowded schools --it should be addressed and
is being addressed.
Mr. Mark Smith came back to the podium and answered numerous questions that were raised
by the citizens regarding fire hydrants, proffers, floodplains, stormwater management, Route 37 connections
to Senseny Road and Route 7, road connections in Apple Ridge subdivision, traffic counts from VDOT which
were taken in March of 1999, and the types of housing proposed to be constructed.
Members of the Planning Commission believed the commercial area was an integral part of
this plan's success and that it needed to be built early. They believed the commercial development would
reduce traffic on Senseny Road. The Commission discussed the traffic impact study with the applicant and
the logistics of the second traffic impact study, which was to be submitted when the commercial area was
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 441
-12 -
developed.
The Planning Commission was pleased with the proposal and noted that it is the kind of
exemplary plan they have been working towards for years. Members spoke about the frustration of receiving
rezoning requests on five and ten acre tracts because of the difficulty in planning comprehensively. They also
spoke about the rapid growth that is occurring in the rural area, outside of the UDA, which creates
uncontrolled, unmanageable growth, with no ability for the County to realize proffers or to influence
infrastructure. They believed the proposal was in agreement with sound Comprehensive Planning practices
and the road network was consistent with the Eastern Road Plan. They believed the applicant's revised proffer
statement and additional information reasonably mitigated the impacts to infrastructure, services, and adjoining
properties, and addressed the concerns raised by members of the public and the Commission.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve
Rezoning Application 415-99 of Channing Drive, submitted by Greenway Engineering, -to rezone 354.3 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) and 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2
(Business General) with the revised proffers submitted by the applicant.
CANCELLATION OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 1999 MEETING
The Planning Staff announced that there were no pending applications for the Planning
Commission's meeting of November 17, 1999.
Upon motion and second, the Commission unanimously agreed to cancel their November 17,
1999 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. by
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of November 3, 1999 Page 442
APPLICATION ACTION SUMMARY
(printed December 2, 1999)
KIIIIIIIIHMAPplicati n newly1
Ysubmi
tt
ed.
Manuel C. & Pearl A. DeHaven
& W.D. & Dorothy Orndorff
(REZ#10-99)"Mr. Fuel"
Stonewall
1
9.4382 acres from M2 to B3 and .8263
acres from RA to B3;
10.2645 ac. of IA Overla District
Location:
500'+ so. of intersection of Rest Church Rd. (Rt. 669) & Martinsburg
Pk. (Rt. 11), betwn Rt. 11 & I-81, & continuing so. to Duncan Run.
Submitted:
04/13/99
PC Review:
05/05/99 - recommended approval with proffers
BOS Review:
05/26/99 - tabled
Channing Drive (REZ #15-99)
Stonewall
354.3 ac. from RA to RP for 846 homes;
(Previously: Lynnhaven,
22.0 ac. from RA to B2 for commercial
She ard/Futral, & Giles)
use
Location:
North side of Senseny Rd., on both sides of Beans Pond Lane, & at
the end of Eddy Lane
Submitted:
02/05/99; resubmitted 10/08/99
PC Review:
03/03/99 -tabled (applicant waived time req.);
11/03/99 - recommended approval with proffers
BOS Review:
12/08/99
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Shenandoah University - Revision
to MDP #001-91
Shawnee New 2,500 seat football stadium &
1 eliminate 500 -unit dormitory (BE)
Location:
East side of 1-81 adjacent to College Park and Pembridge Heights
subdivisions
Submitted:
07/30/99
PC Review:
08/18/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
08/25/99 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Lexington Court (MDP #04-99)
Opequon
26 townhouse units & 3 urban single -
I family lots on 4.8635 ac. (RP)
Location:
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)
Submitted:
07/14/99
PC Review:
12/15/99
BOS Review:
01/12/00 -tentatively scheduled
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Oakdale III, Raven Pointe, Raven
Oaks, Ravenwin DP #02-99
Shawnee
668 residential dwelling units on 247
acres of RP -zoned land
Location:
North side of Rt. 50, East of Winchester
Submitted:
05/11/99
PC Review:
06/02/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
07/14/99 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Ft. Collier Industrial Park (Win-
chester Pasta SUB #26-99
Stonewall
Subdivision of 82.136 acres into two lots
- Lot 27A & Lot 27B 1
Location:
SE end of Park Center Dr. (Rt. 1323), approx. 0.15 mi. SE of the
Westbrooke Rd. (Rt. 1320) intersection
Submitted:
10/13/99
MDP #004-91
approved by BOS 10/09/91; NIDP admim. approved 02/24/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
LIMIMP
din
Adams Family Ltd. Ptnrshp.
SUB #25-99
Shawnee Subdivision of 26.45 acres into 2 lots
1
Location:
Airport Business Center, Parcel 4, Airport Road
Submitted:
10/07/99
MDP #009-87
last revision of MDP was admin. approved 06/22/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Airport Parc Bldg. A (Airport
Business Center) SUB #23-99
Shawnee
Subdivision of 64.2 ac. into 2 lots
1 w/ Flea Tech Overlay)
Location:
Intersection of Airport Road & Admiral Byrd Drive
Submitted:
10/05/99
MDP #009-87
MDP approved by BOS 09/23/87; latest MDP revision
administratively approved 06/22/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Prince Frederick Office Park,
Phase II SUB #22-99
Shawnee Subdivision of 49.910 acres into 5 lots
(B2
Location:
1/4 mi. so. F Rt. 50E., 1/4 mi. east of Rt. 522N., immediately west of
Prince Frederick Dr., immediately southof Winchester Reg. Airport
Submitted:
09/30/99
MDP #001-93
MDP approved by BOS 04/14/93; MDP admin. approved 06/08/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Frank W. Nichols Property
SUB #21-99) NO MDP
Opequon Subdivision of 2 lots: Lot 1 - 14,742 s.f.;
I Lot 2 - 14,987 s.f. )
Location:
239' northwest of the Montgomery Circle/ Fairfax Dr. intersection
Submitted:
09/27/99
PC Review:
10/20/99 - recommended approval w/ sidewalk exception
BOS Review:
11/10/99 - approved w/ sidewalk exception
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
RavenWing, Section 1
(SUB #20-99
Shawnee 80 single-family urban lots on 24.5711
acres
Location:
North side of Rt. 50 East of Winchester
Submitted:
08/27/99
MDP #02-99
MDP Approved by BOS 07/14/99; Admin. Approval is Pending
Subd. Admin. Approved:
ndin
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Thomas A. & Helen S. Grove
Subdivision (SUB #19-99)
NO MDP
Shawnee
Subdivision of 5.958 acres into 2 lots
(Mi)
Location: __7South
side of Ai rt Road (Rt. 645)
08/06/99
Submitted:
PC Review:
09/01/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
09/08/99 -approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Merriman's Chase (SUB #13-99)
I
Back Creek
I— I
Subdivision of 26.895 ac. into 48 single -
family residential lots (RP)
Location:
W. side of Merrimans Ln. (Rt. 621), along Rt. 37 at Abrams Creek
and Winchester & Western Railroad
Submitted:
04/26/99
MDP #006-98 (formerly known as
Willow Branch)
Approved by BOS 01/13/99; Admin. Approved 02/12/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
The Camp/Tasker Rd. (JASBO,
Inc. /F. Glaize) (SUB #011-99)
Opequon
Subd. of 50.52 ac. into 170 single-family
residential lots Win 3 sections (RP)
Location:
So.west corner of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636)
Submitted:
02/18/99
MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP approved admin. 09/04/98
Subd. Admin. A roved:
Section 1 approved 10/27/99; Sections 2 and 3 are pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Fort Collier - Lot 32
SUB #09-99
Stonewall
Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 4.7374
acres 1
Location:
Property fronts the northwest corner of the intersection of Brooke Rd.
(Rt. 1322) & West Brooke Rd. (Rt. 1320)
Corner of Century
01/29/99
-Submitted:
MDP #004-91
MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; admin. approved 11/22/91
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Industrial Pk. - Lot 32
SUB #06-99
Gainesboro
Location:
Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 5.4455
ac. 1
Location:
Corner of Century
Ln. (Rt. 862) & Lenoir Dr. (F-732)
Submitted:
01/27/99
Pending
MDP #006-93
MDP approved by BOS 07/14/93; MDP admin. approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
[Pending
Canter Estates - Section I
SUB #05-99)
Shawnee Subdivision of 24.5524 ac. into 60 lots
1 for single-family det. traditional hoines
Location:
Northwest corner of intersection of White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636) &
Macedonia Church Rd. (Old Rt. 642)
Submitted:
02/08/99
MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP admin. approved 09/04/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Tybrooke, L.C. (SUB #03-99)
NO MDP
Gainesboro
2 Lots; Tl. Acreage 4.1277 (132 & RA)
Location:
Front Royal Pk (Rt. 522) at Albin; 1 mile N. of Winch. B (Rt. 37)
Submitted:
01/22/99
PC Review:
03/17/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/12/99 - approved
Subd. Admin. Approved:
pending
Autumn Glen, Sect. I
SUB #015-98
Opequon
21 lots - duplex & multiplex (52
dwellings) on 14.8 ac.
Location:
South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642), 0.25 mi_ East of Rt. 647
Submitted:
06/30/98
MDP#004-98 (Tasker Rd Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP Pending Admin. Approval
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Phase I approved on 11/04/98 for 21 dwellings
Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall
Indust. Pk. SUB #007-9
[Gainesboro
Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (Ml)
Location:
McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection
Submitted:
07/28/97
MDP #006-93
Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97)Stonewall
75 s.fzero lot line lots on 20.278 ac.
Location:
So.west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322)
Submitted:
05/16/97
MDP #001-97
Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Sect. 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98; Sect. 2 approved; Sect. 3 pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Winchester -Fred Co. IDC SUB
Back Creek
2 Ml Lots 0.552 acres & 20.285 acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP #003-87:
A roved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88
Pending Admin. Approval
[Awaltingsigned plats.
Abrams Point, Phase I SUB
Shawnee 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/13/90 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat
Harry Stimpson (SUB) lFopeguon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
10/26/94 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
CFW Wireless/ 7 East Project
(SP #58-99
Stonewall
195' monopole tower; 2,500 s.L
disturbed area on 56.519 ac. site (RA)
Location:
3100 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
11/12/99
Approved:
Pending
Michael G. Prelip, Inc.
(SP #57-99)
Back Creek
Construction of an office complex on
1.2180 acres 3)
Location:
Commonwealth Court
Submitted:
11/03/99
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999
Lakeside Library (SP #56-99)
Shawnee
Library Complex; 5.40 ac. of a 16.0 ac.
site to be developed
Location:
Macedonia Church Road
Submitted:
10/29/99
Approved:
Pending
Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
Inc. SP #55-99
Back Creek 400,000 s.f. multi -phase mfg. facility;
24.87 ac. site 1
Location:
Intersection of Shady Elm Rd. & Apple Valley Rd.
Submitted:
10/21/99
Approved:
Pending
Kraft Foods Wastewater
Treatment Bldg, SP #54-99)
Stonewall 2,300 s.f. addition to existing mfg.
1 facilit ; 20 -acre site 1
Location:
220 Park Center Drive
Submitted:
10/12/99
Approved:
Pending
Pentecostal Holiness Church
SP #53-99
Stonewall
Church Addition; 2.12 -acre parcel
Location:
Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), north of Old Charlestown Rd. (Rt. 76 1) &
south of Ste henson Rd. (Rt. 664)
Submitted:
10/14/99
Approved:
ndin
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 10
Kraft Foods Capri Sun 2000
SP #52-99
Stonewall
s.f. addition to existing mfg.
Ffacifity;20.00 -acre parcel 1
Location:
220 Park Center Drive
Submitted:
10/12/99
Approved:
Pending
Bandit Karts III (SP #51-99)
Shawnee
6,000 s.f. warehouse, 1,500 s.f. office for
manufacturing use on 1.34 -ac. site 1
Location:
Lot 9, Westview Business Centre
Submitted:
10/13/99
Approved:
11/17/99
Jim Wilson Warehouse #2
(SP #49-99)
Stonewall
Reconstruct 30,000 s.f. warehouse bldg.
On existing foundation 1
Location:
Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
08/31/99
Approved:
Pending
Irongate, Inc. (SP #48-99
III_
Opequon
1
Addit to exist. steel fabrication shop;
0.25 ac. develop. on 1.438 ac. site 1
Location:
201 Ridings Lane
Submitted:
08/30/99
Approved: J1
Pendin
Park Place Condominiums,
Section II SP #44-99
Shawnee
88 unit apartment complex; 9.52 ac. of 11 -
ac. parcel developed (RP)
Location:
S.E. corner of Valley
Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) & Brookland Ln. (Rt. 658)
Submitted:
08/18/99
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 11
Stonewall Industrial Park, Lots
26, 27, & 28 (SP #42-99
Gainesboro
10,450 s.f. office/ 154,325 s.f.
warehouse; 12.08 ac. parcel 1
Location:
McGhee Road; Stonewall Industrial Park
Submitted:
07/30/99
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Valley Baptist
Church SP #40-99)
Opequon
2- 756 s.f. additions to existing church
1 bldg. for storage use (RA)
Location:
4699 Valley Pike
Submitted:
07/12/99
—Approved:
Pending
Fairfax Court (SP #38-99)
Opequon
Single-family & Multi -family
Residential Use
Location:
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)
Submitted:
07/14/99
Approved:
Pending
Appleland Sports Center, Inc.
SP #37-99
Back Creek
Expansion of existing commercial
recreation area; )
Location:
4490 Valley Pike
Submitted:
07/14/99
Approved: 1P
Pending
Vim & Marietta Walls
(SP #34-99)
Stonewall office (B2); 1.58 ac. parcel (1.0 ac. in
1 City of Wine.; 0.58 ac. in Fred. Co.)
Location:
909 North Loudoun St.
Submitted:
06/22/99
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 12
he
Wine. -Fred. Co. ChpjSP:#23-99
American Red Cross
Stonewall 16,160 sq.ft. office facility on 2.0213 ac.
I parcel (B2
Location:
E. side N. Frederick Pk; approx.
1/4 mi. N. of Winc. Corp. limits
Submitted:
05/13/99
Approved:
Approved:
—Pending
Kim Henry Property -Mini
Warehouse SP #057-98
Stonewall
7,504 s.f. warehouse; 4 ac. developed of
a 7.74 ac. site 3
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane & Fort Collier Road
Submitted:
08/26/98
Approved:
Pending
Moffett Property (SP #050-98)
Stonewall
Metal warehse. addition (4,800 g.s.f.);
1.392 ac. site; 0.465 disturbed 3
Location:
1154 Martinsburg Pike
Submitted:
07/21/98
Approved:
Pendin
T.P. & Susan Goodman
SP #044-98)
Stonewall
Hackwood/ Minor Site Plan (RA)
Location:
534 Redbud Road
Submitted:
06/10/98
Approved:
Pending
Southeast Container (SP #001-98)
Stonewall District
Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a
89.6 ac. Site 1
Location:
Ft. Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
01/06/98
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 13
Agape Christian Fellowship
Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97)
Shawnee
Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be
developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/1-81 Interchg.
Submitted:
02/12/97
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Bldg. Supply
(SP #056-96)
Gainesboro
Warehouse on 5 acres (M1)
Location:
195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park)
Submitted:
12/16/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube
Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive -
l I Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2)
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Location:
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
j Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts
(SP #022-96)
Gainesboro
Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a
1 0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
American Legion Post #021
(SP, #018-96)
Stonewall
Addition to lodge building on 3.4255
1 acre site (B2)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 14
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Kenneth E. Hottinger
(CUP #28-99)
Opequon Automobile Repair Shop (RA)
Location:
1057 Ridings "ll Road, Middletown
Submitted:
11/05/99
PC Review:
12/01/99 - withdrawn by the applicant
BOS Review:
N/A
Stuart M. Perry, Inc.
(CUP #27-99)
Back Creek Golf Course (RA)
Location:
1052 Merrimans Lane
Submitted:
10/29/99
PC Review:
12/01/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
01/12/00
Nanette M. McFarland
(CUP #26-99)
Back Creek
Kennel (inside home) (RA)
Location:
3782 Wardensville Grade
Submitted:
10/28/99
PC Review:
12/01/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
01/12/00
Andrew Reh (CUP #25-99)
Back Creek
Ice Sculpting (RA)
Location:
8068 Valley Pike
Submitted:
10/06/99
PC Review:
11/03/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
12/08/99
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 15
Rhoda W. Kriz (CUP #24-99)
Gainesboro
Bed & Breakfast; 3 rooms available;
owner/operator will live in house
Location:
547 Apple Pie Ridge Road
—Location:
Submitted:
09/30/99
PC Review:
11/03/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
12/08/99
Milam's Landscape
(CUP #18-99)
Gainesboro
landscape contractors business &
garden center; expansion of previously
approved CUP #012-97 (RA)
Location:
Round Hill Road
Submitted:
09/10/99
PC Review:
10/06/99; rescheduled for 11/03/99; 11/03/99 - recommended
approval with conditions
BOS Review:
12/08/99
SBA, Inc. (Richard Miller Cooley
Property) (CUP #03-99)
Opequon
Commercial Telecommun. Facility:
1 250' self-supporting lattice tower (RA)
Location:
173 Catlett Lane, Middletown
Submitted:
03/12/99
PC Review:
04/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 90 days to 07/07/99;
07/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 30 days to 08/04/99
08/04/99 - tabled at the applicant's request indefinitely
BOS Review:
not yet scheduled
VARIANCES:
Location: I� So. side of High Banks Rd. (Rt. 660), bordering Opeq. Crk., approx.
1,900' west of the Rt. 660/664 intersection.
Submitted: 11 11/23/99
BZA Review: 11 12/21/99
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 16
Applications Action Summary
Printed December 2, 1999 17
P/C REVIEW: 12-15-99
BOS REVIEW: 01-12-00
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #04-99
LEXINGTON COURT
LOCATION: The property is located on the north side ofFairfax Pike (Route 277), approximately
0.25 miles east of the intersection with Double Church Road (Route 641).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86-5-B
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District Use: Single Family Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
(North): Zoned: RP Use: Residential (Village at Sherando)
(South): Zoned: B2 Use: Vacant
(East): Zoned: RP Use: Residential
(West): Zoned: RP Use: Residential (Georgetown Court)
PROPOSED USE: Single -Family Urban Lot and Townhouse Complex
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: A traffic analysis at the proposed site should be provided
for a complete VDOT review to be accomplished. Also, see attached letter dated July 28,
1999 from VDOT to Painter -Lewis.
Sanitation Authority: First review - approved.
Inspections _Dept.: Townhouses shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building
Code/1996.
Fire Marshal: Fire lane signage and painted linage at fire hydrants and turnaround; plan
approval recommended.
Lexington Court, MDP #04-99
Page 2
December 3, 1999
Park and Recreation: This master development plan appears to meet open space and
recreational unit requirements.
County Engineer: Upon review of the subject master plan, we offer no comments at this
time. We will offer all comments at the subdivision plan submittal. Therefore, we
recommend approval of the subject master plan.
Planning Department:
Site History:
The original Zoning Map for Frederick County depicts the parcel as R-1, Residential Limited
District (U. S. G. S. Stephens City Quadrangle). The zoning classification for these properties
was amended on September 28, 1983 when the RP (Residential Performance) District
replaced the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-6 Districts.
Project Scope:
The applicant proposes to develop a 4.8635 -acre parcel with three (3) single family detached
urban lots and twenty-six (26) townhouse units, which will involve minimum lot sizes of
12,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet, respectively. This creates an overall gross density
of 5.96 units per acre, which is below the permitted density of ten (10) units per acre.
The twenty-nine (29) lots proposed through this master development plan will be developed
as one phase with each lot having curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The applicant has set aside
32%, or 1.3640 acres for common open space, which exceeds the minimum required by
ordinance. Furthermore, the recreational unit requirement for a development of this scale will
be addressed through the provision of a tot lot. The applicant has indicated that residents of
the single-family lots would be permitted access and use of the common open space and
recreational amenities provided with the development.
. Issues:
1) Transportation:
The widening of Route 277 is ranked as the second-highest priority on the list of
major road improvement projects included in the 1999 Primary Road Improvement
Plan for Frederick County. The subject parcel is located on the segment ofRoute 277
that will be improved as Phase I of the project. The applicant has provided a 12 -foot
dedicated strip of land intended to accommodate the right-of-way requirements of this
Lexington Court, NWP #04-99
Page 3
December 3, 1999
project. Staff has been advised by Mr. Steve Melnikoff ofVDOT that such dedicated
area adequately satisfies the project's right-of-way needs along the frontage of the
development.
2) Non -Conforming Structure:
The southernmost urban lot proposed through this master development plan will
contain the single-family dwelling that currently exists on the parcel. The applicant
has indicated that this dwelling will remain upon development of the remainder of the
parcel. It is important to note that this dwelling will encroach within the required
front yard setback area of the proposed lot as a result of the location of the Lexington
Court right-of-way. In essence, approval of this master development plan will
facilitate the creation of a non -conforming structure. Staff has determined that the
origination of an encroachment in such a manner may appropriately be considered a
legal non -conformity, thereby precluding the need to alter or remove the existing
dwelling.
3) Road Efficiency Buffer:
Fairfax Pike (Route 277) is identified as a minor arterial road in the Comprehensive
Policy Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires the development of a full or reduced
road efficiency buffer between arterial roads and residential land uses. The proposed
lot subject to this requirement will contain the aforementioned existing dwelling,
which will be located 52' from the dedicated right-of-way of Route 277. Such
separation would not satisfy the setback distance associated with either a full or
reduced road efficiency buffer. However, as the existing dwelling was developed on
the parcel prior to the adoption of this development standard, staff has determined
that its full implementation may be inappropriate in this case. The applicant has agreed
to provide the landscaping that would otherwise have been required via the road
efficiency buffer within the common open space area of the development. The
location and nature of such landscaping must be delineated on the final master
development plan.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/15/99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Although approval of the proposed master development plan will result in the aforementioned non-
conformity, it is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of
this plan should be contingent upon the applicant's ability to adequately address all comments or
concerns of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, as well as the technical
comments of all review agencies.
0:1Agendes\COMM ENTS\MDP'sULexingtonCouit.MDP
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY
COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
P_O. BOX 278
EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278
July 28, 1999
Mr. Timothy G. Painter, P.E.
C/O Painter -Lewis, PLC
302 S. Braddock St., Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Tim:
JERRYA.COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(540)984-5600
FAX(540)984-5607
Ref: Fairfax Court
Route 277 (Fairfax Pike)
Frederick County
A VDOT review has been completed on the preliminary site plan dated July 7, 1999 for the
referenced project. Our comments are as follows and as shown on the enclosed plan sheets:
Plan Sheet 3 of 11
1. The traffic volume on the VDOT facility (Route 227, Fairfax Pike) should be shown on the
- plan. This is Item 7 on the Entrance Permit Plan Check List. -=-I've enclosed a blank copy for---.----- — --
your
or----_=--your information and use.
2. The designation for CG -11 entrance should be used on Route 277 and at parking lot entry
to the proposed street.
3. The CG -12 notation should be provided.
4. The proposed 8" water main crossing of Route 277 should be installed by jack/bore method.
A note should be used to show this on the plan sheet.
5. Site generated traffic should be provided on the plan.
6. Additional VDOT detail sketches should be shown on the plan: CG -6; CG -11; and CG -12.
When all the above comments have been addressed please provide one set of revised plans for
VDOT review. If there are any questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely
i1 '+"Engineer
l "SSV;
Barry J. Swel� rans. AG 0 199
For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engin
BJSJrf �I�T. OF PLr1NNlN^jC'EVE10PlviE11T
Enclosure
xc: Mr. Dave Heironimus, Mr. Kris Tierney
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
MDP #04-99 PIN: 86-5—B
Lexington Court
Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 07-21-99
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
1.
2.
3.
9
APPLICATION
MASTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only.
Date application received
Complete. Date of acceptance. q
Incomplete. Date of return.
Application #
I)J- =Y
Project Title : CoU It — lJrba:r. f a.,A ow..�.ous� Co�w�ltx
z -
Owner's Name: M; c k n s( G. Pre k
GnA.-c p C., G •
(Please list'the names of all owners or parties in interest)
Applicant: l�c� . �.rl-v - (-� �: s . ? . L C
Address: 3o Z S • r� d 5�.i Sly. zo 0
Phone Number: C a o U (D Z- 5-1 5 7—
Design Company: p ( (� -
Address:
Phone Number:
Contact Name:
Page 11
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property:
P1 �I sen . (".,S C.13_S
6. Total Acreage: 1q. V. 35 dcf-e s
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN):
b) Current Zoning: R P
C) Present Use: i
d) Proposed Uses: S ate-
e) Adjoining Property Information:
Property Identification Numbers Property Uses
North <�b 54 9� kls �s - i 2 c. , �(� � J
South � -540
East V- "s_£ , S'(. - 5 - e.;,
West S(9 - A -
f) Magisterial District: nf4e 2 uan
S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original ✓ Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master
development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All
required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan
application.
Signature:
Date:
Page 12
Adjoining Property Owners
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any
property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly
across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested
property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining
property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the
Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the
Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
��_
Yage IS
AXLE
POST
SEE HOUSE
DETAIL
t z5 MILEg�l
FF R
IN TX 0AX
-'/I/ A"C- AT
LV /
1JCRAAI-/
r,� ruV SL v.
L HAMMER CT
50' R/W
86-5-8
4.6635 ACRES
N 7020'15" W
41.70"
N 72 *06'J9 "
80.00'
SUR I�FYOR'S —C& HEC—A
/ HERELaY CER 77FY THAT THE INFORMA770N
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION
ON AUGUST 20, 1998 AND THA T TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AAD BES /Ec ARE NO
ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS UNLESS
SHOWN.
�o
m�
a
I r
AQm5:-
1. NO 77LE REPORT FURNISHED.
2. PROPERTY IDEN7717CA77ON NO. 86-5-8
3. EASEMENTS OTHER 7HAN SHOWN MAY EXIST.
4. IRF - IRON ROD FOUND
IRS - IRON ROD SET
IPF - IRON PIPE FOUND
- UTILITY POLE
— — OVERHEAD WIRE
5. CURRENT INSTRUMENT /N CHAIN OF 777LE IS
DEED BOOK 303 AT PAGE 505.
BOUNDARY SURVEY
ON 7HE PROPERTY OF
ROBERT N. STROSN/DER
& CORA W. STROSN/DER
DEED BOOK 303 PAGE 505
OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL D/S7RICT
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
DA7F• SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 SCALE- 1=100'
JOB "f 198-338
MARSH & LTGGE
i Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
2 STORY 74'
FRAME io
DWELLING N
o , 573
¢/ 1 ,
20.3'
N
A PORCH
11.6
HOUSE DETAIL
1'—Jo'
FLOOD NOTE-
ZONE- C
COMMUNITY NO.: 510063
PANEL- 0115 B
DA 7F• 07-17-78
TH OF
9
es a r.
No. 0019
8
Lia D SURVE�O
139 NORTH CAMERON STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PHONE (540) 667-0468
FAX (540) 667-0469
,j Z,
1Q)b
9
�-
a',
SHED
ALDIN CONCRETE ::zPAD
o
86.3' to
I
GRA VEL
DRI VEWA Y
i
I
i
277
T
7z77" A�RFAjC PSK Wo Ty R/w
F VARIABLE
BOUNDARY SURVEY
ON 7HE PROPERTY OF
ROBERT N. STROSN/DER
& CORA W. STROSN/DER
DEED BOOK 303 PAGE 505
OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL D/S7RICT
FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA
DA7F• SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 SCALE- 1=100'
JOB "f 198-338
MARSH & LTGGE
i Land Surveyors, P.L.C.
2 STORY 74'
FRAME io
DWELLING N
o , 573
¢/ 1 ,
20.3'
N
A PORCH
11.6
HOUSE DETAIL
1'—Jo'
FLOOD NOTE-
ZONE- C
COMMUNITY NO.: 510063
PANEL- 0115 B
DA 7F• 07-17-78
TH OF
9
es a r.
No. 0019
8
Lia D SURVE�O
139 NORTH CAMERON STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PHONE (540) 667-0468
FAX (540) 667-0469
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/673-0682
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Amy M. Lohr, Planner I �-
Subject: Michael G. Prelip Office Complex - Driveway Alignment Waiver Request
Date: December 2, 1999
Nature of request:
The Planning Commission has received a request from Mr. Tim Painter, on behalf of the above
referenced development, to permit an alternative to the driveway alignment requirement, Section 165-
29. A. (12) Motor Vehicle Access, of the Zoning Ordinance. This section requires that new driveways
shall align with existing or planned driveways. The site plan for Prelip's office complex shows two
20' driveways, neither of which align with the 40' planned driveway across Commonwealth Court. It
should, however, be noted that the proposed driveways have been centered with respect to the
opposing entrance. Therefore, it is necessary to determine if the presented alternative to the driveway
alignment standard is acceptable.
Planning Commission authority:
Pursuant to Section 165-29B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission, may allow other
means of motor vehicle access which do not meet the requirements of this section. Such means may
involve the use of entrances which physically limit or restrict left turns, methods which ensure one-
way travel, or other methods.
Method of alternative means of access:
The 1.2 -acre site has approximately 160' of road frontage along Commonwealth Court. The proposed
driveways shown on the site plan are approximately 80' apart. They are separated by a raised island,
containing eight parking spaces. The 20' width of each driveway in combination with the raised island
are sufficient to establish a one-way circulation pattern to serve both car and truck traffic. Vehicles
107 North bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Driveway Alignment Waiver Request.
Page 2
December 2, 1999
entering the site at the easternmost driveway may utilize the parking area or continue straight to the
loading area at the rear of the building. This pattern appears to ensure minimal conflict between car
and truck traffic within the site while also limiting conflict with the opposing driveway.
Staff conclusion:
The Planning Commission has the authority to allow other means of access that do not meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when methods of controlling motor vehicle access that promote
safe and convenient access to and from the site are implemented. The applicant has proposed a pattern
of one-way circulation, controlling access in a manner that advances safe and convenient access to and
from the site. In order to further promote efficient travel along Commonwealth Court, staff would
recommend the provision of additional signage and appropriate pavement markings at each driveway
entrance to highlight the circulation patterns. With this in place, it may be appropriate for the
Planning Commission to support this request.
AML/ch
Attachment
U\Amy\Common\PC Memos\PreLpdrivealignreq.wpd
_ -
'.Ci
'ti I o0'OF
R I15.37
CONC.
-, O APRON K
a
- PROPOSED STONED i I
PAR^KING AR_,'
C 93
C
50 P � BOLLARDS
v
G HEAVY P4VEMEN7 30
SECTION
F LS.�
!
P
,^
'C OVERHEFD�
1
_
GARAGE DCOP
LOT 5
I
1.2180 ACRES
SHOWROOM & STOP.AGE
\�A `1
'
LOW -EE LEVEL
�
10,701 Sq. Ft.(TOTAL)
o
PROPOSED CONTP,ACTOR'S OFFICE
\
I
`I
4 o SANITAFY
� WER LATEPAyI
9 2.JE%
L
+a
4.50'-
TI
HEIGHT -35' MAX.
j
4'P
0
!
P
'-
'C OVERHEFD�
_
GARAGE DCOP
LOT 5
I
1.2180 ACRES
SHOWROOM & STOP.AGE
'
LOW -EE LEVEL
�
10,701 Sq. Ft.(TOTAL)
o
PROPOSED CONTP,ACTOR'S OFFICE
3
w
IM (�UNiTS
_
ONE STOn with MEZZANINE
4
— — —
TI
HEIGHT -35' MAX.
j
AREA: 15,000 Sq. Ft.
F.F.=748.00
OFFICE SPACE
UPPER LEVEL
4,297 Sq. Ft.(TOTAL)
O
v
SUITE 100
;SUITE 200
"0 "f
1 WATER SERVICE
L
r:FPr� ('L_
r
N
�
i
I
'
I
�
20.0
Co J
� I
�
i �
/ f
31. i '
1 A I + 4' CCNC. WALk 1 HDCP RAMP 4 'DNC. WALK i
`1 Sfl R CU
F _ b 'y';.i TRRN
SITION
If EOXI I -_; I � `ti_ P� i
0 OP.F- I I I. i 50-R� it If
�
HEAVY PAVEME T
T, r�
SECTION
'o PROPOSED PARKING
HEAVY PAVEMENT
SE.:-1nN 35' °.R -L r l ' �Lj a
LIGHT PAVE MEN'
SE TION
\ I _ By - ass LnW a u,'
t 1 1, B ♦ - I I I - W' ter a Need }d j `o `G Do / r c. —
it I
c BOXES
RANS ��'� ca r5'R 14I45'B,41vdj:�"_�
7 30 a pC
rr
is i L n r"TT,.4�--
_ I r;-,- DISTANCE 65C• `t t L TO END Je = c.
y C w
\ ' _ SPE. D LIMIT -25 MPH ',NOT POSTED;
l : ECc 2; 1--r
��Itiil'1> 1 �
V PSE i \
r
CIPE
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-565.1
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Christopher M. Mohn,�Planner II
Subject: Satian Enterprises, Inc., Park Place Condominiums, Section II:
Request for a Waiver of the Lot Access Requirement for Multi -family Housing
Date: December 2, 1999
Nature of Request:
The Planning Commission has received a request from Mr. Tim Painter, on behalf of the above -
referenced development, for a waiver ofthe lot access requirement applicable to multi -family housing.
The applicant has submitted a site plan for the development of nine (9) apartment buildings that will
consist of eighty-eight(88)two-bedroom units. Access to the proposed development will occur solely
via an entrance from Brookland Lane (Route 658), with circulation through the site facilitated by a
system of driveway loops that connect to a central travelway. The site plan depicts the location of
buildings "E" and' P' at distances of 670' and 715' from the entrance to the development, respectively.
The maximum allowable distance for multi -family housing from access to a state -maintained road is
500 feet. The applicant is seeking a waiver of this requirement to facilitate revision of the approved
master development plan that would permit the layout proposed on the site plan. The proposed layout
would involve the elimination of a second entrance to the site directly from Valley Mill Road (Route
659), which was included on the original master development plan.
Planning Commission Authority:
Pursuant to Section 144-24.C(2)(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission may
allow multi -family lots to be located as much as 800 feet from a state -maintained road in cases where
enhanced circulation is provided with a driveway loop.
107 North Kent Street + Winchester, Virginia 226101-5000
Entrance Spacing Reduction Request
Page 2
December 2, 1999
Staff Conclusion:
The Planning Commission has the authority to extend the distance permitted between state -maintained
roads and multi -family dwellings to a maximum of 800' when circulation is enhanced through the
provision of a driveway loop. The applicant has proposed that two multi -family buildings be
permitted at distances of 670' and 715' from the entrance to the development from Brookland Lane,
respectively. The layout of the proposed development has been designed to include two driveway
loops intended to facilitate circulation throughout the site. Furthermore, the elimination of the second
entrance to the site will arguably improve the safety and efficiency of the traffic flow on Valley Mill
Road as its intersection with Brookland Lane will be the focal point for access to both sections of the
condominium complex. It is, therefore, evident that the applicant has incorporated design features
into the proposed development that result in a desirable circulation pattern, which may satisfy the
criteria for a waiver of the access standard applicable to multi -family housing as outlined in the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Attachments
CMM/ch
U IChnslcommonlPCMemosUadan lot access waivecmemwpd
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Tel.:
Winchester, VA 22601 Fax.:
Mr. Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II
County of Frederick Planning Department
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Park Place Condominiums, Section II
Brookland Drive
Shawnee Magisterial District
County of Frederick, Virginia
(540) 662-5792
(540) 662-5793
November 29, 1999
Dear Sir:
On behalf of Satian Enterprises, Inc., developer of this project, this is to serve as the request
for a waiver of the 500 ft. maximum access length to multi -family dwelling units from a
state -maintained roadway, Section 144-24C (2) (b) of the County of Frederick Zoning Code. The
ordinance permits an extended length of up to 800' for private roadways and aisles where looped
circulation is provided, subject to approval of the Planning Commission. This project, as designed,
provides a looped roadway and parking system around the multi -family dwelling units that exceed
the 500 ft. limit. There are only two buildings, a total of 20 dwelling units, that exceed this 500 ft.
limit. Please note, also, that the maximum length to these buildings is approximately 705 ft. which
is less than the maximum limit of 800 ft.
Please review this information and advise us as to your findings regarding support of this
waiver and submission to the Planning Commission for final approval. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. If you would have any questions or would require further assistance
please do not hesitate to contact me.
vl�i�llr,I
Sincerely,
Timothy G Painter, P. E
JACQUELINE ANN DOYLE -
P.I.N. 541-1-13
DAVID L. BRAGG DB 907 / PG 1596
P.I.N. 541-1-12 USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DB 784 / PG 1272 ZONE:RP RONALD W. ALLANSON
JOHN GIANGOLA USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL P.I.N. 541-1-15
DONALD G. & CATHY G. CANSE P.I.N. 541-1-10 ZONEAP DB 585 / PG 315
P.I.N. 541-1-7 DS 635 / PG 286 ANDREW T. RIGGLEMAN USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DONALD L. LICHUTER & DS 579 / PG 817 USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL P.I.N. T.
RIGG 14 ZONE:RP
TAMMY SUE BROCK USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONEAP DB .N. / PG 14
P.I.N. 541-1-4 ZONE:RP 363
USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DAVID R. & RHONDA G. MADISON
DB 900 / PG 435 CLARENCE C. &HAZEL M. ESSER KATHERINE S. BLACK. TR. ZONE:RP JOHN GIANGOLA P.I.N. 54I-1-17
USE:SINGUE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL P.I.N. 541-1-9 P.I.N. 541-1-11 P.I.N. 541-1-16 DB 876 / -1 7594
ZONE:RP DONALD G. &CATHY G. GANSE DB 827 / PG 160 DB 900 / PG 435 DB 635 / PG 286 USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
P.I.N. 541-1-5 USE:SINGIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE:RP
MELISSA V. BEAN DB 579 / PG 817 ZONE:RP ZONE:RP ZONE:RP
P.I.N. 541-1-3 USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE NRAL K & G ASSOCIATES OF VA
DB 893 / PG ESLD 20NE:RP P.I.N. 541-1-18
USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL —_I —I I — NG 713 / PG BD2
ZONE:RP `L.--- L L � � — — � —�
L
( USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE:RP
LOG.
ala
SATIAN ENTERPRISES?
P.I.N. 54-2-1 B
D8 855 / PG 1384
USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE:RP
FRED L. GLAIZE, III
P.I.N. 54-2-2
DB 790 / PG 347
USE:AGRICULTURAL
20NE:RP
VA. S£C. RTE. 659 VALLEY MILL ROAD
� I
BROOKLAND HEIGHTS
I SECTIONS 1 & 2
P.I.N. INSERT 54B
DB 688 / PG 305
I I USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE:RP
ROY L. RUDOLPH, ET. AL.
P.I.N. 54-2-3
DB 754 / PG 904
USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE:RP
\ BROOKLAND HEIGHTS \� c
SECTION 3 \ \
P.I.N. INSERT 54B )))
DB 688 / PG 305
USE:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
7nMr•Rc
"ALTN� p y 'L
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAY: 540/678-0682
M. EMORz"D UM
To: Planning Commission
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee
From: Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator _
Subject: Joint Work Session: Discussion - Loading Areas; Access and Surface Materials
Date: December 3, 1999
Due to the close proximity of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) December 23,
1999 meeting to the holiday season, Staff and the Planning Commission felt that it would be appropriate to
reschedule. In light of a relatively light Planning Commission agenda on December 15, 1999, and the fact that
staff has a couple of items to discuss with the DRRS, a joint work session/discussion will be held betwetm the
Planning Commission and the DRRS during theregularly scheduled December 15,1999, Planning Commission
meeting. I hope that the members of the DRRS who are not on the Planning Commission will be able to attend
this meeting. With this in mind, the DRRS meeting on December 23, 1999 has been canceled.
Discussion - Loading Areas
Over recent months, staff has reviewed several site plans that propose various kinds of loading areas.
Generally, the requirements for loading spaces are relatively straightforward. However, access to loading areas,
in particular, the surface materials used, invokes a considerable amount of debate. Staff is seeking to clarify
its interpretation of the requirement with the confirmation of the Planning Commission and the DRRS in order
to maintain consistency in application of the standards and to give firm direction to the development community
of the acceptable standards for loading areas. -
The applicable section of the Zoning Ordinance is Section 165-28.D., Access, which addresses access to
loading spaces. A copy of this section is attached and highlighted for your information. It is staff's
interpretation that access to all loading spaces shall be provided via driveways and aisles meeting the
requirements for parking lots contained in Section 165-27. Therefore, the surface materials provided should
be appropriate for the zoning district in which the development is located For instance, access to loading
spaces in developments that are zoned M1 (bight Industrial) and are located in an Industrial Park should be
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Joint Work Session
Page 2
December 3, 1999
paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or similar materials. Access via gravel driveways would be
unacceptable in this scenario.
The application of surface materials meeting the parking lot requirements does not apply to the loading spaces
themselves. Gravel is occasionally proposed as a surface material in the loading spaces and this approach is
presently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-29.D. Access, which specifically only includes the
paving of driveways and aisles that provide access to the loading spaces. The dimensions of the loading space
are specified in the ordinance. However, the area in which gravel has been permitted has. been liberally
interpreted resulting in gravel loading areas rather gravel loading spaces. It should be noted that the majority
of developments occurring in Frederick County do propose to install loading areas and loading spaces that are
completely paved in asphalt or concrete. However, many older developments do have gravel loading areas.
It is staff's belief that the Zoning Ordinance is explicit in requiring the access to loading areas to be of a paved
surface material and staff will continue to apply this standard. In addition, if it is the goal of the ordinance to
provide a durable, dust and gravel -free, hard surface throughout the development, it may be appropriate to
amend the ordinance to require that loading spaces are provided with a paved standard. This would eliminate
dust and gravel within commercial areas and industrial parks and eliminate the durability problems created
when making the transition from a paved to gravel surface. The alternative would be to amend the ordinance
to allow a reduced surface material standard and expand the application of this area to loading areas rather than
loading spaces.
Staff would appreciate any input from the Planning Commission and DRRS regarding this issue, in particular,
if the two groups feel that staff's interpretation is accurate and whether or not it would be appropriate to further
revise the loading area standards at this time.
MTR/ch
Attachments
U:\Mike\Common\DRAS\loadingaccesspcdrrs.mcm
§ 165-27 ZONING § 165-28
SHADE TREE
) H
SCALE 1=40
EXANIPLE PARKING LOT
§ 165-28. Loading areas.
Spaces for the loading and unloading of trucks and vans shall be provided in
association with business and industrial uses as follows:
A. Loading spaces required.
(1) The number of loading spaces required shall be as follows:
16539
§ 165-28 FREDERICK COUNTY
CODE § 165-28
Type of Use
Loading Spaces Required
Food stores, restaurants and
1 for first 10,000 square
taverns-
feet of floor area plus 1 for
each additional 30,000
square feet
Retail and personal services
1 for first 10,000 square of
floor area plus 1 for each
additional 30,000 square
feet
Hotels and motels, lodges,
1 for each 20,000 square
clubs, fraternal organizations
feet of floor area
and indoor recreation
Office buildings
1 for structures between
30,000 and 100,000
square feet; 1 for each addi-
tional 100,000 square feet
Manufacturing, wholesale,
1 for each 40,000 square
trucking, construction and in-
feet of floor area
dustrial uses
Schools, hospitals and nursing
1 for each structure with
homes
more than 100,000 square
feet of floor area
(2) Interpretation.
(a) When a use is not specifically listed above. the Zoning
Administrator shall determine which of the above categories
to use to determine the spaces required. based on similarities
between the characteristics of the uses. When a use is not
specifically listed above, the Zoning Administrator may also
use information provided by the applicant or other sources of
information to determine the number of spaces required.
(b) In cases where mixed uses share the same loading area, the
loading spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces
required for the various uses. In some cases, different uses will
be contained in a single structure or site plan, and in those
16540
§ 165-28 ZONING § 165-29
cases, the spaces required shall equal the sum of the spaces
for each use.
B. Loading space dimensions Each
C
regwred 101301119 space shall be
twelve (12) feet wide and forty-five (45) feet long. Each loading space
shall have a vertical clearance of fourteen (14) feet.
Obstructions and structures. Loading spaces shall be designed to
permit loading and unloading without requiring the moving of any
parked motor vehicle. Utility poles, light standards, trash containers
and similar structures shall not be permitted within loading spaces.
Access. In no case shall a loading space be approved which requires
IRIM01ehicie enter or back directly from loading spaces onto public
roads. All loading spaces shall be provided access to a public road
using an entrance which meets all requirements of the Frederick
County Code and the Virginia Department of Trancnnrratinn
§ 165-29. Motor vehicle access.
A. New driveways.
(1) Private driveways shall be allowed to provide access to individual
residences or uses. Private driveways shall also be allowed to
provide access to parking lots and loading areas shared by a
number of residences or uses.
(2) In order to provide safe and convenient access and to provide
efficient travel on arterial highways, a minimum spacing shall be
provided between new driveways and entrances onto collector
roads and onto primary and arterial highways, in the following
zoning districts:
131 Neighborhood Business
B2 Business General
B3 Industrial Transition
M1 Light Industrial
M2 Industrial General
16541 10-10-95
§ 165-27 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-27
(3) When shared parking is provided on abutting lots, means of
pedestrian access shall be provided between each use sharing
the parking and the parking area.
(4) When shared parking is provided on abutting lots, a lease,
easement or other form of agreement shall be executed among
the property owners sharing the parking assuring the use of the
required parking spaces and assuring proper maintenance of the
parking area. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator for review and approval.
C. Parking space size. All required parking spaces shall be at least one
hundred eighty (180) square feet in size and shall be no less than nine
(9) feet in width.
D. No part of a tractor truck, tractor truck trailer, semitrailer, bus or dump
truck shall be parked or stored within the RP Residential Performance
District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District or the
MH1 Mobile Home Community District Any truck with a total length
of twenty-five (25) feet or greater shall not be parked or stored within
the RP, R5 or MH1 Zoning Districts. (Amended 6-9-19931
E. Parking lots. Parking spaces shared by more than one (1) dwelling or
use, e uird-d for any use in the business or industrial zoning district or
required for any institutional, commercial or industrial use in any
zoning district shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Surface materials. In the RP Residential Performance District, the
iaenti� alanned Community District, the R5 Residential
Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home
Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business District, the
B2 Business General District and the 63 Industrial Transition
District and in shopping centers, office parks and industrial parks,
parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete or
similar materials. Such surface materials shall provide a durable,
dust and gravel -free, hard surface. The Zoning Administrator may
determine that other hard -surface materials are appropriate for
effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. In
other cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of
double prime -and -seal treatment or an equivalent surface.
(2) Space demarcation. Alf parking spaces shall be marked by durable
painted lines or curbs extending the length of the space. The
16534 is - Z5-93 _
§ 165-27 ZONING § 165-27
Zoninc administrator may allow appropriate alternative markings_
Signs -and pavement markings shall be utilized, as necessary, to
ensure safe traffic movement and pedestrian access and to
desiccate handicapped parking spaces.
(3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete or rolled asphalt curbing and gutters
shall be installed around the perimeter of all parking lots in the RP
Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned
Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community
District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the 61
Neigi b.crhocd Business District, the -62 Business General District
and the 33 industrial Transition District and in shopping centers,
office parks and industrial parks. The curbing shall be a minimum
of six (6) inches in height. All parking lots shall be included within,
an approved stormwater management plan. The Zoning
Administrator may allow the use of concrete bumpers instead of
curbinc where such means are necessary to implement the
story awater management plan.
(4) Raise islands. Raised islands shall be installed at the ends of all
parking bays abutting an aisle or driveway in the RP Residential
Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community
Dis-u-'=, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the
Ml -i1 Mobile Home Community District, the 61 Neighborhood
Business District, the 62 Business General District and the 63
Industriai Transition District and in shopping centers, office parks
and industrial parks. The raised islands shall be bordered by
cont: -t=- or rolled, asphalt curb. All islands shall be at least nine (9)
feet wide and shall extend the length of the parking space or bay.
The islands shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs or other
vegetative materials.
(5) Setbacks. Ali parking lots shall be located no closer than five (5)
feet frcm any property line, except in cases where more than one
(1) lot shares the parking lot. In such cases, the parking lot shall
not be c'oser than five (5) feet from the perimeter boundary of
the lots sharing the parking lot. In the M1 Light Industrial District
and M2 Industrial General District, parking lots shall be located no
closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any road right-of-way.
(6) Handicapped spaces. Handicapped parking spaces shall be
provided in any parking lot according to the requirements of
16535 10-25-93
F
§ 165-27
FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-27
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Handicapped parking
spaces shall have a minimum width of tt�,elie (12) feet.
Handicapped spaces shall be located on the perimeter of the
parking lots adjacent to sidewalks. A three -fact -wide curb ramp
shall be provided adjacent to the handicapped parking spaces to
provide access to the sidewalk. The number of spaces provided
shall be as follows:
Total Parking Spaces
1 to 25
26 to 50
51 to 75
71 to 100
101 to 150
151 to 200
201 to 300
301 to 400
401 to 500
501 and more
Required
Handicapped Spaces
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
2% of total
(7) Entrance requirements. In no case shall a parking lot be approved
which requires that vehicles back from parking spaces onto public
roads. All parking lots shall be provided access to a public road
using an entrance which meets all requirements of the Frederick
County Code and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The
width of driveways serving the parking lot shall not be less than
twenty-four (24) feet for two-way traffic and twelve (12) feet for
one-,vay traffic. [Amended E-9-1993]
(S) Aisle requirements.
(a) Access to each parking space shall be provided by an aisle
with the following width:
(Ccnt'd on page 16537)
16536 10-25-93
§ 165-27 ZONING § 165-27
Aisle Width
Pariking Space Angle 1 -Way 2 -Way
(degrees) (feet) (feet)
Parallel 12 20
30 12 20
45 15 20
60 18 22
90 22 22
(b) For other angles, the aisle width shall be the same as for the
nearest angle in the above table.
(9) Obstructions and structures. Parking lots shall be designed to
permit each vehicle to proceed to and from all unoccupied
parking spaces without requiring the moving of any other parked
motor vehicle. Utility poles, light standards, trash containers and
similar structures shall not be permitted within any aisle or parking
space. Any structure located in a parking lot shall be surrounded
on all sides abutting spaces or aisles by a six-inch concrete curb.
The structure shall be separated from the curb by a distance of
three (3) feet.
(10) Drive-in lanes. A separate lane, with a minimum width of twelve
(12) feet, shall be provided for all drive-in or pickup facilities. Such
lanes shall be clearly separated from parking spaces, aisles and
driveways. Sufficient drive-in lane length shall be provided to allow
the stacking of five (5) automobiles per drive-in window.
(11) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance
District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5
Residential Recreational Community District, the MH 1 Mobile
Home Community District, B1 Neighborhood Business District,
.10 the B2 Business General District and the B3 Industrial Transition
District and in shopping centers, office parks and industrial parks
shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and
headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots
should be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat_ Landscap-
16537
r
§ 165-27 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-27
ing shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of
parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots
as follows:
(a) Perimeter landscaping. Required parking lot setback areas.
abutting the parking lot, shall be planted with shade trees and
other landscaping. A three -foot -high evergreen hedge, fence,
berm or wall shall be provided as necessary to prevent
headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining
properties. A minimum of one (1) shade tree for every forty
(40) feet of parking lot perimeter shall be provided. Additional
trees may be required to properly shade the lot.
(b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of five percent (5%) of the
interior portions of a parking lot shall be landscaped for the
purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping
shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised
strips extending along the length of a parking bay. Within the
parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be
used to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns.
The shade trees provided shall be of an appropriate type to --
ensure shading at maturity. No less than one (1) shade tree
shall be provided for each ten (10) parking spaces.
(121 Pedestrian access. Sidewalks shall be provided as necessary
within parking lots to protect pedestrians and promote the safe
and efficient movement of pedestrians and vehicles. In large
parking lots, pedestrian waikways and crosswalks shall be
provided, marked by durable painted stripes and appropriate
signs.
(13) Setbacks. All parking lots shall be located no closer than five (5)
feet from any property line.
16538