HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 05-18-11 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
May 18, 2011
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab)
2) April 6, 2011 Minutes and April 20, 2011 Minutes......................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article I General Provisions;
Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits, Part 102 Amendments, §165-102.06
Conditional Rezoning — Revision to Public Hearing requirements for Proffers.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (B)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
6) Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan. An introduction to the land
use plan and an opportunity to provide input on ensuring a coordinated approach to
addressing the future growth of this area.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C)
7) Other
FILE COPY
C_.'
i
.,
u
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on April 6, 2011.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chainnan/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger,
Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District;
Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; and David Shore, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison.
ABSENT: Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the April 6, 2011, Planning Commission agenda as
presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, the
minutes of February 2, 2011, and March 2, 2011, were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2735
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 4/01/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported that representatives from both the City and County
school systems were present to provide an overview of career and technical training being offered to
students, as well as industry credentials the students can obtain. In addition, the EDC discussed a new
minor logo design change for the EDC, consisting of a font and color change. He said that Mr. Josh
Phelps was re -appointed to the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee for the upcoming year.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) — 3/14/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the CPPC made a final review of the proposed update
to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and voted to move it forward to public hearings.
!Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 3/16/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB reviewed a proposed rezoning at the Clear
Brook Quarry for Carmuese Lime & Stone and in addition to accepting the proposed proffers offered by
the quarry, the HRAB requested the following: 1) An application for the Martin House to be submitted to
the National Registry for review; 2) A revision to proffer 3.1 for more definitive language; 3) Relocation
of a portion of the proposed berm from around the historic house; and 4) Redesign of the screening berm
to make it appear more natural and less uniform and artificial.
Transportation Committee — 3/28/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported on two items discussed by the Transportation Committee.
The first item was a review of the draft Secondary Road Improvement Plan. The second item was a
discussion of the Revenue Sharing Program with VDOT. Representatives of VDOT were present and
explained that the program will increase from $15 million to between $50 and $200 million.
Commissioner Oates said that while this is good news, keep in mind that funds received from the State for
County projects in this program must be matched dollar for dollar by the County.
Frederick County Planning Commission i �^ Page 2736
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-3 -
Winchester Planning Commission (VVPC)
Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, David Shore, reported that the WPC will be
holding a public hearing on their revised Comprehensive Policy Plan later this month and they are
beginning a complete re -write of their zoning ordinance.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
2030 COMPREHENSIVE POLICE' P�.AN
This is a public hearing for the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Plan
comprehensively addresses the future of Frederick County for its citizens. The Plan is guided by
the Vision Statement and Core Values crafted and adopted by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors. The Plan is supported by two appendices: Appendix I, which includes each of the
County's Area Plans, and Appendix II, which provides background analysis and studies in support
of the Plan. The Plan in its entirety may be viewed at www.frederickeountyva.gov.
Action — Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the 2030 Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan has been considerably restructured from the previous plan. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to
give an overview of the plan, describing the various chapters within the plan. He noted that the plan was
based upon the vision statement and core values expressed by the Board of Supervisors at the end of 2009
and these core values were significant in guiding the working groups in putting the plan together. Mr.
Ruddy stated that implementation will primarily come about through the area plans contained in
Appendix 1. Historically, the area plans have been the County's implementation tool and are developed
by selecting a specific area of the County and identifying future land uses, working with property owners
and citizens within that area, and developing a plan in which the citizens of that area would like to see
happen.
Mr. Ruddy explained that in order to make the plan more readable and usable, an outline
for each of the chapters was established that was consistent and concise. He said the working groups
examined the current conditions in each particular area and identified what the future focus in that area
should be, what the benefits to the community might be, and then provided some policies and
implementation tools to achieve the future focus.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2737
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-4 -
In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy pointed out that there was a considerable amount of public
outreach for this project and the working group effort, which involved collaboration with a large group of
citizen volunteers. He said this approach was extremely thorough and beneficial to the Comprehensive
Plan update.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. The
following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Fred Hudson, a resident of the Stephens City area, read from a prepared statement
and presented a list of ten questions concerning the Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Hudson stated that
globalism has reached Frederick County under the cover of the United Nations Agenda 21 and he was not
sure Frederick County officials realized it was happening. He said the TDR (Transfer of Development
Rights) was a power tool that could be used by future Frederick County officials to strip citizens of their
rights to own property and to build homes of their choice and it promoted the high-density, urban living
proposal set forth in the plan. Mr. Hudson believed there were major moral, ethical, and conflict of
interest issues in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. He recommended that the TDR ordinance be voided
and all TDR references be removed from the Comprehensive Plan and the Virginia Code.
Mr. Danny Lanning, a resident of the Stephens City area, also read from a prepared
statement. Mr. Lanning had concerns about the TDRs and believed TDRs had the earmarks of the
beginning of socialism, county -sanctioned style, by forcing cluster living, which had the potential to
allow government control of many aspects of an individual's life. He also expressed concerns about high-
density urban development creating a greater need for emergency responders, facilities, and equipment.
He was also opposed to using the round -about concept within main arteries as proposed in the plan. He
said the round -about concept has been proven to be dangerous, confusing, slow traffic, decrease response
time for emergency vehicles, cost more to maintain, and are difficult for snow removal. Under the
residential section, he was opposed to main arteries bordering and/or going through residential areas. He
thought the implementation section under the retail chapter created conflict with free enterprise and was a
deterrent to businesses relocating to Frederick County. Mr. Lanning asked for the plan to be re-evaluated
as it may create negative effects on the economy, way of life, liberties, and safety.
Mr. Jack Lillis, a resident of Frederick County, also read from a prepared statement. Mr.
Lillis expressed concerns about the timing of the Planning Commission voting immediately after closing
a public hearing. He thought this left the impression that the outcome of the hearing may be
predetermined and that no attention is being paid to the comments of the citizens who attended the
hearing. He suggested that the Commission delay voting, particularly when there is dissention, to give
the Commission more time to address comments made during the public hearing and to give speakers
some assurance their comments will be considered.
Ms. Debbie Stottlemyer, a resident of Stephens City, expressed concerns about the TDR
ordinance and she was unaware it was approved last year. Ms. Stottlemyer thought many residents in
Frederick County were unaware of TDRs and what they implied. She asked the Commission to delay
making a recommendation this evening and to hold additional public meetings to inform more residents
of the County. She also commented that she found some sections of the Comprehensive Plan to be
confusing and difficult to understand.
Since no one else wished to speak to the Commission at this time, Chainnan Wilmot
allowed Mr. Hudson to return to the podium to read the list of questions he had prepared.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2738
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-5-
The following questions were read by Mr. Hudson: 1) Why are we developing a new
Comprehensive Plan so soon after approving the one approved in 2007? 2) Who provided the template
for the plan being considered? 3) Is an individual's property devalued when the owner transfers his
development rights? 4) Why does the transfer of building rights require a covenant with the County? 5)
Is it true that only the County can determine the number of development rights on anyone's property and
then can increase the number upon transfer to another property? 6) Is it true that the purpose of the TDR
is to take away our individual rights to build outside of the proposed Urban Development Area (UDA)
and force the citizens of this County to live in high-density areas within the designated UDA? This may
ultimately result in government control of all of our rural properties. 7) Is it true that this is done for the
purpose of returning land back to its natural state thereby honoring its sacred nature for the purpose of
environmental protection from global warming? 8) Is it true that Frederick County's TDR ordinance is
really cap and trade at the State and County level? Instead of trading carbon emissions, we are trading
building rights and the rich and powerful prosper, while the middle class is reduced and bears the cost. 9)
Would it be true that after 20-30 years, all building rights in the County would be gone, forcing the
majority of the County's population into the UDAs? 10) Is it true that the majority of the residents of the
UDAs will ultimately be found in high-density areas within the UDA?
Chairman Wilmot next closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman
Wilmot invited the staff to comment on any of the public comments that were made.
In answer to Mr. Hudson's question of why Frederick County is updating its
Comprehensive Plan at this time, Mr. Ruddy said historically, Frederick County has worked closely with
property owners, land developers, and citizens throughout the County to proactively plan for the future,
while keeping in mind what is in the best interest of the residents in a particular area. He said the
previous time the Comprehensive Plan was overhauled was in the late 1980's and much of the
information contained within that plan was out dated. Mr. Ruddy said the Rural Areas Study, which was
conducted over the past couple of years, had provided much of the guidance that helped the community as
they came together to understand what was happening in the rural areas and what approaches they could
collaboratively put together to address some of the Rural Areas needs. In working with the Board of
Supervisors, a vision statement was created for the County and core values developed to guide that vision.
Mr. Ruddy added that fortunately, the structure of the plan was crafted by individuals who live and work
within Frederick County and who serve on citizen groups. He said he was very willing to meet with
anyone to go through the Rural Areas Study or to answer questions about the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Kriz wanted to address the comments made that considerable numbers of
residents within the County were unaware of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that over
the last two years, requests have been made in numerous ways in an attempt to get citizens to attend
meetings when this plan was being discussed. Commissioner Kriz said he personally wrote two letters to
the editors of newspapers urging citizens to attend meetings. He said it was disheartening when
attendance is low when citizens' input is requested all through the development stages. Commissioner
Kriz said that every section of this document had a core working committee that represented the
appropriate citizenry of Frederick County. He commented there was no "template;" this was Frederick
County's version and no outside entity came in to say how it should be developed. In addition,
Commissioner Kriz believed that a considerable number of the people who spoke had a wrong
understanding of TDRs and how they would operate.
Commissioner Oats also wanted to address the comments made that citizens were
unaware the Comprehensive Plan was being updated. Commissioner Oates said this has been in the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2739
Minutes of April 6, 2011
Q.
newspaper for over a year, there have been public meetings, subcommittee meetings, and there have been
many articles in the Winchester Star. He said the TDR Program was developed by working with the
farmers throughout the community as a way to try to preserve farmland. Commissioner Oates agreed that
the value of their land would go down if they sell their development rights, but it is entirely voluntary and
thev are compensated for that. He said the farmers wanted an alternative to subdividing their farms and
er y. Commissioner
Oates said the FrPde_,rick County Farm Bureau
still get some value out of their prop
and many farmers and orchardists were involved in developing the TDR Program. He noted this went on
for about two years and was a very public and open scenario. Commissioner Oates pointed out this is the
only TDR Program in Virginia which was developed to support the agricultural community. He stated
that the Director of Planning, Mr. Eric Lawrence, was invited to speak on various occasions to other
counties about how it was developed because everyone agreed on how well it turned out. Commissioner
Oates assured everyone it was not something promoted by the United Nations. Commissioner Oates said
the update was done to make the Comprehensive Plan easier for citizens to understand; he said this new
plan is far easier to read and understand than the previous plan and plans from surrounding counties.
Chairman Wilmot thanked everyone for their comments and for their interest in the future
of Frederick County.
Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of the 2030 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan
comprehensively addresses the future of Frederick County for its citizens. The Comprehensive Policy
Plan is guided by the Vision Statement and Core Values crafted and adopted by the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors. Two appendices support this plan: Appendix I, which includes each of the
County's Area Plans, and Appendix II, which provides background analysis and studies in support of the
Plan.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 TIJR 2017
A Joint Public Hearing conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the
Planning Commission of Frederick County, in accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of
Virginia, to receive public comment on the proposed Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal
Years 2012 through 2017 in Frederick County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget
for Fiscal Year 2012. All projects in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for
federal funds will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
which documents how Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds.
Action — Recommended Approval
Frederick County Deputy Director -Transportation, Mr. John A. Bishop, reported that the
Interstate and Primary Road Improvement Plans, which normally accompany the Secondary Road
Improvement Plan, will be coming forward later than usual because VDOT's and the County's time lines
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2740
Minutes of April 6, 2011
were a little different this year. He explained that VDOT needed the Secondary Road Improvement Plan
done as soon as possible and so the staff has brought this forward. Mr. Bishop said there were not many
changes in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan from the previous time.
Beginning with the Major Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop pointed out the most
notable difference, the addition of Red Bud Road as Ranking #2. He said the primary purpose is to re-
align Red Bud Road to where it would intersect with Snowden Bridge Boulevard, just east or west of the
CSX Railroad tracks. Mr. Bishop explained this would allow the future alignment of the interchange
ramps for northbound I-81, exiting to Route 11, and the ramp northbound from Route I1 to northbound I-
81. Regarding the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop noted only two projects on the
list, Ridings Mill Road and Woodside Road. He said no new projects were added to the unscheduled list
this year and no projects were able to be moved from the unscheduled to the scheduled list because there
are no funds.
Mr. Bishop noted that the Revenue Sharing Application for this year is upcoming and the
Board of Supervisors was expected to take action at their next meeting. He said the expectation is the
typical $1 million allocation; the recommendation to the Board will be the road improvements in the
vicinity of Valley Mill Road, where it intersects with Eddy Lane, and subsequently, Route 7. A public-
private partnership is being pursued so that State funds can be leveraged without the use of funds from the
County's general fund.
Mr. Bishop said the Transportation Committee did not have a quorum when this was
considered; however, it was the consensus of those present that the recommendation be for approval of
the Secondary Road Improvement Plan.
Commissioner Thomas had questions concerning the funding for Red Bud Road under
the Major Road Improvement Projects. Mr. Bishop commented that the funds do not actually exist at this
time; he noted this is simply a forecasting document and as the funds come in on an annual basis, the
amount noted is what is foreseen to be available and targeted towards the project.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 through 2017 in
Frederick County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2012. All projects
in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for federal funds will be included in the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which documents how Virginia will obligate
federal transportation funds.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2741
Minutes of April 6, 2011
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165,
ZONING, ARTICLE IV, AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PART 401, RA
(RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT, SECTION 165-401.07, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; AND
CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 144-35, PRELIMINARY
SKETCHES. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL AREAS REQUIREMENTS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS MADE IN 2009.
Action — Recommended Approval
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that in December of 2009, Frederick
County adopted a number of changes to the zoning and subdivision ordinances to implement the Rural
Areas Study. Mr. Lawrence stated that in recent months, it was recognized there were two minor
corrections that were needed for consistency within the zoning and subdivision ordinances.
Mr. Lawrence said the first proposed change, to Section 165-401.07 Setback
Requirements, is necessary to clarify that setback requirements apply to all lots in the RA (Rural Areas)
Zoning District (conforming or non -conforming in lot size) and the second change, to Section 144-35
Preliminary Sketches, is to eliminate a reference to 40% preservation tracts in the subdivision ordinance.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public comment portion of the hearing and called for
citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously
passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV,
Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District, Section 165-401.07, Setback
Requirements; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article VI, Section 144-35, Preliminary Sketches.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165,
ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS; AMENDMENTS; AND, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS, PART 102, AMENDMENTS, SECTION 165-102.06, CONDITIONAL
REZONING. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO REVISE THE PUBLIC HEARING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFFERS.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that staff had been informed that a change
to the zoning ordinance is appropriate to enable a new State Code provision in regards to proffer
revisions. Mr. Lawrence said the Code of Virginia contains enabling legislation that allows the Board of
Supervisors to waive the public hearing requirement for proffer revisions when the proposed revision
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2742
Minutes of April 6, 2011
ME
does not affect conditions of use or density. He said after conferring with the County Attorney, the staff
is proposing that language be included within the County Code which is consistent with the State
provisions. Therefore, if there is a request for a proffer amendment and it is deemed appropriate,
specifically the proffer amendment does not affect the density or use of the project, the requestor will not
have to go through the general 60 -day public hearing process.
Mr. Lawrence noted that this item was presented to the Development Review &
Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on January 7, 2011. He said the DRRC endorsed the
changes and recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Thomas inquired who would make the determination of whether or not the
proffer amendment would affect the density or use of the project. Mr. Lawrence replied it would be
determined by the Zoning Administrator, but the Planning Commission would be made aware of the
activity.
Commissioner Mohn believed this could be especially beneficial because there were
numerous scenarios where proffers were date -oriented or date -committed and given the recent economic
conditions where, despite the developer's or property owner's willingness to carry through, things have
not gone according to plan. Commissioner Mohn said it would make sense to deal with the matter in a
quasi -administrative way. He believed this was a good approach.
Commissioner Oates said he could see where there would be benefits; however, one
concern be had was if the proffer revision would affect an adjoining neighbor in some way, such as
eliminating a screen between adjoining properties. Commissioner Oates suggested the language within
the proposed ordinance be tightened up a bit to allow only proffer revisions dealing with public
properties.
Mr. Lawrence replied that the staff was enabled to tighten the language; however, from a
staff perspective, they would not process someone without a public hearing if it was going to impact an
adjacent property owner. He noted that staff will work on tightening the language. Mr. Lawrence said he
would forward the Commission's comments on to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
Written Communications Submitted During the Public Hearing Regarding the Update of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Chairman Wilmot noted that written communications were handed out to the Planning
Commission during the public comments portion of the Comprehensive Policy Public Hearing. She said
these people did not come forward to speak. The correspondence was from George E. Siekkinen, Jr. and
two from Thomas Moore Lawson of Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime & Stone.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to add the correspondence to the official file and record.
(Note: Commissioner Lemieux was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2743
Minutes of April 6, 2011
-10-
ADJ®URUN>ENI'
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion made by Commissioner
Kriz and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2744
Minutes of April 6, 2011
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on April 20, 2011.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M.
Mohn, Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County
Attorney; and David Shore, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison.
ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Wilmot announced one addition to the agenda, a resolution stating the
Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Comprehensive
Policy Plan. She said this item will be Number 6 on the agenda, after the DeCanio conditional use
permit.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the April 20, 2011, Planning Commission agenda with the
amendment as stated.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 4/19/11 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB reviewed an application for an AT&T
Commercial Telecommunications Facility at 2418 Indian Hollow Road. He said the HRAB
recommended denial of the request due to its visual impact on historical features in the area. However, if
this were to go forward, the HRAB believed this was a good opportunity to use a monopine so the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2745
Minutes of April 20, 2011
-2 -
structure would be camouflaged. They also recommended shortening the height, moving the structure
closer to the woods, and placing a landscaped buffer around the base of the tower to hide the building.
Winchester Planning Commission — 4/19/11 Mtg.
Mr. David Shore, Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, reported that the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the City's Comprehensive Policy Plan and it was recommended to
City Council for approval. The Planning Commission also gave administrative authorization to staff to
approve a site plan for a new Longhorn Steak House which will be on South Pleasant Valley Road. Mr.
Shore said this will take the old Circuit City Store out of the vacant category; the old structure will be
demolished and a new structure erected.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any issue not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 903-11 of Shenandoah Valley Flea Market for an outdoor flea market at
3800 Front Royal Pike (Double Tollgate). This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with
P.I.N.s 87-3-B and 87-3-B1 within the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, Mar, R. Cheran reported that the proposed flea
market will be on two parcels of land totaling 14+ acres. Mr. Cheran noted that the applicant is leasing
12+ acres of the 94+- acre property identified as Tax Parcel 87-3-B and owns 2+ acres identified as Tax
Parcel 87-3-B 1. He said the use is an expansion of the existing flea market adjacent to the site which is
located within Clarke County, Virginia. This 14 -acre flea market use will have a total vender area of
99,030 square feet, with frontage and a single entrance along Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). Mr. Cheran said this
entrance shall be the only entrance used to serve this site and no other entrances shall be permitted along
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) or Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522). An engineered site plan will need to be submitted
by the applicant and approved by Frederick County. In addition, all parking areas and travel areas shall
be graveled, the proposed entrance will need to meet the entrance requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
and the use will only operate on Friday through Sunday and on holidays.
Mr. Cheran stated that the Health Department will allow this use to utilize portable toilets
for a period of one year; however, the applicant will need to apply for and install an approved septic
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2746
Minutes of April 20, 2011
-3 -
system within one year of the approval date of the conditional use permit. Mr. Cheran next read a list of
recommended conditions, should the Commission find this use to be appropriate.
Mr. Cheran added that the property owner, Mr. Royston Eshelman, and co -applicant, Mr.
Montie W. Gibson, Jr., were present and were represented by Mr. Robert Light of Lawson & Silek.
Commissioner Oates noted that the Health Department comment regarding permanent
sewage disposal is a State requirement; however, he did not see anything that indicated the applicant
could not have portable toilets for convenience after that requirement is met. Mr. Cheran replied that was
correct.
Mr. Robert Light, with the firm of Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., was present to represent the
applicant, Royston Eshelman Properties, LLC. Mr. Light stated both he and his client are working with
the Planning Staff and believe they will be able to work through the language issue regarding the
restroom facilities.
Commissioner Thomas remarked that once the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the language of the conditions cannot be changed unless the
conditional use permit is brought back before the Commission again. He ask the applicant what his
specific concern was regarding the language.
Mr. Light replied that his client was comfortable with all of the conditions, except
Condition Number 2. He indicated that his client is concerned about whether or not everything can be
completed in terms of installing an approved septic system within one year of the approval date of the
conditional use permit, or whether additional time may be needed. Mr. Light stated that his client is not
looking to delete Condition #2, but is thinking that additional time may be needed. He added that his
client has had an engineering firm look at the site.
Commissioner Thomas commented that Condition #2 is actually repetitive and is not
needed because Condition 41 states that the applicant must comply with all agency comments and the
Frederick County Health Department is an agency whose comments must be met. Commissioner
Thomas said if the Health Department stipulates the applicant must have the approved septic system
within 12 months, the Planning Commission would not want to override that requirement.
Chairman Wilmot opened the citizen comment portion of the public hearing and called
for anyone from the audience who wished to speak. No one came forward to speak and Chairman
Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Manuel made a motion to approve CUP #03-11 of Shenandoah Valley
Flea Market with all of the conditions recommended by the staff, except for Condition #2, which would
be eliminated. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #03-11 of Shenandoah Valley Flea Market for an outdoor flea market at 3800
Front Royal Pike (Double Tollgate) with the following conditions:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2747
Minutes of April 20, 2011
-4 -
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
An engineered site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County and all
improvements implemented prior to operating the flea market.
Days of operations shall be limited to Friday through Sunday, and holidays.
4. The use shall only have a single entrance onto a public road; that single entrance shall be onto
Fairfax Pike (State Route 277).
No signage will be allowed on this site for this use.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use pennit.
(Note: Commissioners Triplett and Unger were absent from the meeting.)
Conditional Use Permit #04-11 of Christopher DeCanio and Janet DeCanio, submitted by Thomas
Moore Lawson, Esquire, for a cottage occupation for counseling at 1445 Senseny Road. This
property, zoned RP (Residential Performance), is identified with P.I.N. 54-A-133 in the Red Bud
Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this proposed
cottage occupation will be conducted within the residence and ultimately, will be moved to a converted
garage, separated from the residence. The proposed use will have no more than eight clients per day;
access to the property will be via Senseny Road on an existing driveway; and two parking spaces will be
required for the use. Mr. Cheran stated that based on the limited scale of the proposed use and the
evaluation of the property, it appears this proposed use will not have significant impacts on the adjoining
properties. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use
to be appropriate.
Commissioner Thomas had questions concerning some of the exterior structures; he
asked whether those structures were on the applicant's property and what they were used for.
Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, with the firm Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., came forward
on behalf of the applicants, Dr. Christopher C. DeCanio, LP, Ph.D. and his wife, Mrs. Janet V. DeCanio.
Regarding the exterior structures referenced by Commissioner Thomas, Mr. Lawson said these were old
farm sheds which belonged to the old faun house and pre -dated the subdivision. He said these structures
are not currently being used.
Chairman Wilmot inquired how the property to the east of this site would be accessed;
she asked if there would be a joint use of the driveway. Mr. Lawson believed there were two driveways.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 20, 2011
-5—
Chairman Wilmot opened the citizen comment portion of the public hearing and called
for anyone from the audience who wished to speak. No one came forward to speak and Chairman
Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Mohn believed the use was appropriate at this location and he thought a
counseling office was an ideal co tage occupation. He also bel.eved the co^.d:t:onS were appropriate for
mitigating any impacts of the use. Therefore, Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 904-11 of Christopher C. DeCanio, LP, Ph.D. and Janet V. DeCanio
with the conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas
and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #04-11 of Christopher DeCanio and Janet DeCanio, submitted by Thomas
Moore Lawson, Esquire, for a cottage occupation for counseling at 1445 Senseny Road with the
following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. The applicant shall provide and delineate two parking spaces for this use.
No signage allowed.
4. No more than eight clients per day.
Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit.
(Note: Commissioners Triplett and Unger were absent from the meeting.)
OTHER
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY PLAN FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, INCLUDING APPENDIX I AND APPENDIX II
Action — Recommended Adoption
A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz to recommend approval of the Resolution
Recommending the Adoption of Frederick County's 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Including
Appendices I and II, and with the amendment of this day's date on the front page of the resolution. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed, as follows:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2749
Minutes of April 20, 2011
Q.
RESOLUTION
Action: Planning Commission: April 20, 2011 - Recommended Approval
RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION
OF THE
2030 COMPREHENSIVE POLICE' PLAN
INCLUDING APPENDICES I & H
WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, The Plan, a significant and rewarding undertaking
throughout the Year 2010 and into 2011, was drafted with the assistance of many others, including
community partners and stakeholders, as part of a broad and successful public outreach effort; and,
WHEREAS, this amendment was reviewed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee
(CPPC), and the Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings; and,
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee recommended approval of this
adoption on March 14, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia requires posting of the Comprehensive Policy
Plan on a website, public notice in a local newspaper, and conducting a public hearing prior to a
recommendation by the local Planning Commission to the governing body on adoption of a
Comprehensive Policy Plan, the County staff posted the Comprehensive Policy Plan that is being
considered for recommendation on the official County of Frederick website maintained by the County and
on which matters pertaining to the Planning Commission are generally posted; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the April 6, 2011 public hearing was published twice in a local newspaper in
accordance with Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Policy Plan on April
6, 2011;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby forwards The Plan to
the Board of Supervisors recommending approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby directs the Secretary to prepare a
certified copy of this resolution to the governing body and directs the County staff to post the
recommended and certified version of the Comprehensive Policy Plan on the County website.
Passed this 20th day of April, 2011 by the following recorded vote:
June Wilmot, Chairman — Aye
Roger L. Thomas — Aye
Kevin O. Crosen — Aye
Brian Madagan — Aye
Christopher Mohn — Aye
Gary R. Oates — Aye
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of April 20, 2011
George J. Kriz - Aye
Philip A. Lemieux - Aye
Lawrence R. Ambrogi - Aye
Stan Crockett - Aye
H. Paige Manuel — Aye
-7 -
(Note: Commissioners Unger and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
A Copy Attest
/s/ Eric R. Lawrence, AICP
Secretary
CANCELLATION OF THE MAY 4, 2011, MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Commission's May 4,
2011 meeting.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Manuel,
the Planning Commission unanimously voted to cancel their May 4, 2011 meeting.
B-1.3MIJa91UtN1
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion made by Commissioner
Kriz and second by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission v Page 2751
Minutes of April 20, 2011
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
4COU "FY of li' REBERWK
Department of Planning and Development
Subject: Public Hearing — Public Dearing Requirements for Proffers
Date: May 2, 2011
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-5395
Staff has been informed that a change to the Zoning Ordinance is appropriate to enable a new State
Code provision in regards to proffer revisions. The Code of Virginia contains enabling legislation
that allows the Board of Supervisors to waive the public hearing requirement for proffer revisions
when the proposed revision does not affect conditions of use or density.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their
meeting on January 27, 2011. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the
Planning Commission for discussion.
During the Planning Commission's discussion on April 6, 2011, it was thought this revision could be
especially beneficial because there were numerous scenarios where proffers were date -oriented or
date -committed and, given the recent economic conditions, things may not have gone according to
plan despite the developer's or property owner's willingness to carry through, and the administrative
approach was good. However, a concern was raised about the possibility of a proffer revision
affecting an adjoining neighbor in some way, such as the removal of screening, and it was
recommended that the language should be tightened up a bit to eliminate this possibility.
The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their meeting on April 27, 2011. The Board
discussed the application of this amendment as well as what types of modifications would qualify to
utilize this provision. Also discussed was the fact that the Board of Supervisors decides whether this
provision will be utilized to waive a public hearing requirement and if there is any question with a
request, the Board could hold a public hearing. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approved this
item as currently drafted o be sent to public hearing.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes. A
recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
2. Code of Virginia Reference.
CEP/bad
107 North Beni: Street, Suite 202 s Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Attachment 1
DRRC Endorsed 1/27/2011
PC Discussed 4/6/2011
BOS Discussed 4/27/2011
§ 165-102.06 Conditional rezoning.
The applicant for a rezoning may proffer in writing, before the public hearing by the Board of
Supervisors, conditions to be placed on the approval of the rezoning.
A. Procedures. Proffers shall be presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at
the advertised public hearing for the rezoning. The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation on the acceptance of the proffers and the rezoning to the Board of
Supervisors following the procedures described for amendments to this chapter. Proffers
shall be received in writing, signed by the owner and applicant, at least five (5) days prior to
the advertised hearing of the Board of Supervisors.
1) The Board of Supervisors may amend proffers once the public hearing has begun, or
thereafter, if the amended proffers do not affect the conditions of use or density in such
a way as to make the use or density of the property more intense than originally
proposed. Once proffered and accepted as part of an amendment to the zoning
ordinance, the conditions shall continue in effect until a subsequent amendment
changes the zoning on the property covered by the conditions. However, the conditions
shall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation
of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance.
2) Proffer Amendments. In accordance with § 15.2-2302 of the Code of Virginia, when an
amendment to a previously approved proffered condition is requested by the
profferor, and where such amendment does not affect conditions of use or density,
and when the proposed amendment provides a benefit to the County, the Board of
Supervisors may waive the requirement for a public hearing. Once so amended the
Proffered conditions shall continue to be an amendment to the zoning ordinance and
may be enforced by the zoning administrator pursuant to the applicable provisions of
this Chapter.
Attachment 2
Code of Virginia
§ 15.2-2302. Same; amendments and variations of conditions.
There shall be no amendment or variation of conditions created pursuant to the provisions of §
15.2-2297 until after a public hearing before the governing body advertised pursuant to the
provisions of § 15.2-2204. However, where an amendment to proffered conditions is requested
by the profferor, and where such amendment does not affect conditions of use or density, a local
governing body may waive the requirement for a public hearing (i) under this section and (ii)
under any other statute, ordinance, or proffer requiring a public hearing prior to amendment of
conditions created pursuant to § 15.2-2298 or 15.2-2303. Once so amended, the proffered
conditions shall continue to be an amendment to the zoning ordinance and may be enforced by
the zoning administrator pursuant to the applicable provisions of this Chapter (§ 15.2-2200 et
seq.).
(1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.6; 1997, c. 587; 2009, c. 315.)
i
COUN i' of FREDERICK
DERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
RE: Introduction to the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan
DA'T'E: May 2, 2011
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), at their May 9, 2011 meeting will
be initiating the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan as directed by the Board
of Supervisors. This effort is anticipated to follow the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
and will be one of the first projects aimed at implementing many of the policies of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Staff will provide the Planning Commission with an overview of the study
effort and the discussions of the CPPC. Ultimately, the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas
Land Use Plan will be incorporated into Appendix I — Area Plans, of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
This study effort will encompass the area of the County that is generally east of the City of
Winchester and Route 522 South to the Clarke County line and from Redbud Run in the north to
the Opequon Creek in the south. As the Planning Commission may be aware, this study area
includes the Route 7 and Route 50 Business Corridor Plans which were both adopted in 1994.
The study area has been expanded to incorporate the eastern portion of the Southern Frederick
Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1999. The study area includes both the Red Bud and
Shawnee Districts and a small portion of the Stonewall District.
The Study's efforts will attempt to identify and understand a variety of important issues, both
current and future, and promote a coordinated approach to addressing the future of this rapidly
evolving part of the County. Initially, the following community partners and stakeholders were
identified as integral to this effort: the Winchester Regional Airport, Shenandoah University,
and the Frederick County Landfill. It is anticipated that this outreach will be broadened
significantly, not least to include the public facility providers and the areas many residents.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 s Winchester,—Vrginaa 22601-5000
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Land Use Plan
May 2, 2011
Page 2
Mostly within the County's Urban Areas, this is part of the County which contains a significant
amount of undeveloped land and is generally suited to accommodating the planned growth of the
community. This land use plan includes urban and suburban residential land uses, commercial
and industrial land uses, and institutional and recreational land uses, and a large amount of
underdeveloped land. Significant transportation components include Route 50, Route 7,
Interstate 81, and Route 522, which are part of the County's arterial road network and Senseny
Road, Greenwood Road, and Channing Drive, among others, which are part of the County's
Major Collector Road network. Community Facilities, Natural and Recreational Resources and
Trails play a large part in this area, and the Frederick County Landfill and the Winchester
Regional Airport are two major resources within the study area. that will warrant particular
attention.
The Senseny Eastern Frederick Urban Land Use Plan will provide the County with the
opportunity to proactively plan for this growing area of the community and provide guidance to
those looking to implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the planning effort will
enable the County to promote and refine its economic development goals in and around the
Airport and along three significant business corridors, to ensure a strong nexus between the land
use designations and the other components of the study, in particular transportation, to promote
many of the policies of the Urban Areas component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
As stated previously, any input that the Planning Commission would like to provide at this time
would be greatly appreciated.
MTR/bad
T
57 Business
Corridor PIan :
7
SenSeny & Eastern Frederick
l �y 664
`rs
Urban Land Use Plan
DRAF
T® Current Info
J.
620
enseny Area
- -
J
Lrba� Ian �1
}J
."i
�X`� _••'I
acres
6 _
ICd.Ja
j,
7—
p
I w
S
M3
y` C � 3 E '•.,
A.
bas
—N1"`
723
I �yY 644
co
Ir
"��- ✓ r x ti rY ,✓ �Cx �XZxF•akt--
s ;s. -
r /
r' >1..
657
Study Area
Total Acreage:
10,039
(1 DRAFT Senseny Corridor Study Area
Rt7 East Corridor Plan
CIA Rt50 East Corridor Plan
Future Rt 37 Bypass
Urban Development Area
SWSA
?. Parcels
Long Range Land Use
Rural Community Center
Residential
Mixed Use Age Restricted
Mixed -Use
Business
%/. Mixed Use Commercial 1 Office
Highway Commercial
Industrial
Mixed Use Industrial \ Office
Urban Center
Neighborhood Village
u� Planned Unit Development
Recreation
Natural Resources & Recreation
Open Space
Institutional
Note: Historic \DSA
Map Created by Water Features
Frederick County Dept of Water Features
Planning & Development �J Water Centerline
107 N Kent St Floodplain
Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Document: (F:\GIS_PROJECTS\2009_Projects\SensenyRT50 tanduse\SensenyRT50Landuse_FutureLandUse.mxd)
7/7/2009 -- 11:43:08 AM
A656
7
659
820
i - 1
657
.
.:. `
644
fl
V5
727
/'/^
_
Future Rt 37 Bypass
'
Urban Development Area
Institutional
SWSA
Neighborhood Centers
0
Neighborhood Villages
'
Urban Centers
Ped Shed Distances (.25 & .5 miles)
Parcel,
Neighborhood Village, 1320
i Planning � Development
Neighborhood Village, 2640
A
657
.
.:. `
644
fl
V5
727
c?
/ 664. ��y astern Frederick
Urban Land Use Pla,ri,
659,,,
DRAFT ® Current Info
N�
Land Use with
Neighborhood Centers
&Airport Support Area
}
/'/^
_
Future Rt 37 Bypass
'
Urban Development Area
c?
/ 664. ��y astern Frederick
Urban Land Use Pla,ri,
659,,,
DRAFT ® Current Info
N�
Land Use with
Neighborhood Centers
&Airport Support Area
}
DRAFT Senseny Corridor Study Area
_
Future Rt 37 Bypass
'
Urban Development Area
Institutional
SWSA
Neighborhood Centers
0
Neighborhood Villages
'
Urban Centers
Ped Shed Distances (.25 & .5 miles)
Parcel,
Neighborhood Village, 1320
i Planning � Development
Neighborhood Village, 2640
�� Airport Support Area
--
Urban Centers, 1320
_
1+07 N Kent St
Urban Centers, 2640
Long Range
Land Use
Rural Community Center
Water:=eatures
Residential
Suite 202
Mixed Use Age Restricted
Water Centerline
Mixed -Use
Winchester, VA 22601
Business
�!
Mixed Use Commercial \ Office
540 - 665 - 5651
Highway Commercial
Industrial
Mixed Use Industrial \ Office
Urban Center
'
Neighborhood Village
"
Planned Unit Development
Recreation
Natura:' Resources & Recreation
Open Space
Note:
Institutional
Map Created by
Historic \DSA
-- Frederick County Dept of
Parcel,
i Planning � Development
�� Airport Support Area
--
_
1+07 N Kent St
Water Features
Water:=eatures
Suite 202
Water Centerline
Winchester, VA 22601
Floodp sin
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Document: (F:\GIS PROJECTS\2009_Projects\SensenyRT50_Landuse\SensenyRT50Landuse_FutureLardUse_NeighborhoodCenters_new.mxd)
7/16/2009 -- 10:54:57 AM
Cz
Y )
r
,!}� � Y Gr a r`•�, ,. ` :.. .. � /+
.. s,
p J :l 4-•� /�.
fir;
s q,� c
656
4 L
f 7l
i
4 t
y
• •. :� 1.1 �\,tib / r£ �P
Z
1
ix
If
.���` / 1 � � � � � W Tr ��• _ � , � �" 791
rA
i � L 11•• 1 /�.
�t ¢
sss A
V'®iw',a.,,.,.,> I
522
`s
��1, 1 i ,a / �tid' 1 % ��ac y th � ' ',.., x j �� 6.e• ��. k g� %
k 4 fx
J
br !s n e�i7S' f ' � T t 1j `�v,t' ✓-� -�s 1�Ai !% /
~''.15'
.r w tl r�, r .. ".. - i - - "�`K' it //�� � ➢��5 �4 /` /� ' � / � � /' .��
/ 723 j
r
659
020
�NJ
Transportation
® DRAFT Senseny Corridor Study Area Long Range Land Use
.-, Future Rt 37 Bypass
Rural Community Center
Urban Development Area
Residential
SWSA
�/%
Mixed Use Age Restricted
Eastern_Road_P la n_Oct2006
Mixed -Use
New Major Arterial
Business
!/
Mixed Use Commercial 1 Office
i' Improved MajorArterial
Highway Commercial
New Minor Arterial
Industrial
Improved MinorA$terial
�1
Mixed Use Industrial \ Office
New Major Collector
Urban Center
�a Improved Major Collector
\
Neighborhood Village
_11�__ New Minor Collector
Planned Unit Development
.Recreation
i Improved Minor Collector
Natural Resources & Recreation
6 --Ramp
Open Space
Water Features
Institutional
Water Features
d.
Historic \DSA
`� i Water Centerline
�_
Parcels
Note: ote, Floodplain
Map Created by
Frederick County Dept of
Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Document: (F:\GIS PROJECTS\2009_Projects\SensenyRT50_Landuse\SensenyRT50Land use_Transportation.mxd)
7/16/2009 -- 10:58:22 AM
644
i `\ / I � 41,
791
I-
--T 1; 664'`" nseny & Eastern Frederick
„tX Urban Land U Plan
r � �
� j-
yr.!
AFT - Current Info
l t Community Facilities
Environmental Features
Conservation Areas
� rt `]�." Agricultural & Forestal Districts
659
fill_. t - i
657
820
w
P
I rtQr.':.'T" '
656 j
t
IO, ion
f
Note-
Map Created by
Frederick County Dept of
; Planning & Development
r;�,� 107 N Kent St
' c•I Suite 202
Winchester VA 22601
540 665 5651
DRAFT Senseny Corridor Study Area
r:
� Elementary Schools
Fire & Reseue Stations
High Schools
County &
. City Libraries
Mitld!e Schools
Post OFces
Vocaonal Schools
O Commercial Centers
Assisted Schools
Parks
51 Neighborhood
College
County
Future Rt 37 Bypass
City Park
Llrbar Development Area
SWSA
® S ate
P rc.s
Proposed
Water Features
Water Features
Civil War Battle Sites
�� Water Centerline
Fioce", in
Golf Courses
Agricultural & Forestal Districts
SERVICES
- , Soutr,'redenck District
Airport
' Douq, Church District
Red erd
'— Armory
G�; f Scem: Revers
Landfill
Virginia Outdoors Foundation
VOF('nenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundatio
may' Public Safety
Virginia Outdoors Foundation
Trash Compactor �.�
��.�-•��
`"' VA Derartment of Conservation & Recreation easements
Frederick County & Winchester Gov Easements
Trash Container
City aPA4ncheeter
r40 Frederick County
Glass Glen Burnie Foundation
Private Easements
E�j CMI 1,ar Preservation Trust
Kem m Battlefield Assoc
iW, PDtom-Appalach-an Trail Club
Map Document: (F:\GIS_PROJECTS\2009_Projects\SensenyRT50_Landuse\SensenyRT50Landuse_Environr-enta]ConservationAreas_AgDists.mxd)
7/16/2009 — 11:10:07 AM
LEGEND
SttaudyAmen
7,050 acres
SWSA Boundary
ArrterReg and Coggector Road Projects
WATS Road Improvements
`Additional Collector Roads
kit., 11 Proposed Traffic Signal
Zoning
0 RA (Rural Area District)
0 RP (Residential Performance District)
R5 (Residential, Recreational Community)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General District)
B3 (Industrial, Transition District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
0 M2 (Industrial, General District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Eduction District)
CPPS & Sbfffr Recommendations
Proposed Land Use
® Agricultural
® Residential
Business
Industrial
Institutional
utility
Recreation
Historic
® Mixed -Use
PUD
" Public Trail System
Environmental Constraints
N
W—I - — E
S
02 0 02 0.4 0.6 Miles
FSe .. dC I ppDdpactmeu[ oi'P1nnn3mII
d Develomeal, 4ii efi�(xr, VA
7/20/99