Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-06 ApplicationMarch 1, 2007 Mr. John Lewis Painter Lewis, PLC 116 S. Stewart St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING #14 -06, GLAIZE PROPERTY Dear John: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of February 28, 2007. The above referenced application was approved to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), Round Hill Road (Route 803) and Retail Boulevard, in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, and is identified with Property Identification Number 52 -A -252. The proffer that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bhd Attachment TOLE cc: Gary W. Dove, Gainesboro District Supervisor George Kriz and Charles Triplett, Gainesboro Planning Commissioners /lane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue George W. Glaize, Jr., 30 S. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 RICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 REZONING APPLICATION #14 -06 GLALZE PROPERTY Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: February 5, 2007 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Planning Commission: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed Action November 1, 2006 Tabled for 30 days by Planning Commission December 20. 2006 Recommended denial January 10, 2007 Postponed by Applicant February 28, 2007 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), Round Hill Road (Route 803) and Retail Boulevard. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52 -A -252 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) Use: Orchard commercial South: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: VDOT Facility RA (Rural Areas) Commercial East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Vacant RA (Rural Areas) Residential West: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: VDOT Facility Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial use REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. If Frederick County is satisfied with the amount being offered in Proffer #8 ($10,000.00), then VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers offered in the Round Hill /Glaize Property rezoning application dated November 21, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work perforrned on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Water supply (i.e., fire hydrants) will need to be addressed when site plan is submitted. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the 1.38 acre parcel I.D. #52 -A -252 and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to Page 4, Drainage: Offsite drainage easements may be required to accommodate point- source discharges. 2. Refer to Page 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Correct the first sentence to read the nearest citizens' trash...is located on Route 809, McFarland Road, which is off Magic Mountain Road. Actually, the proposed rezoning from RA to B2 will required that the cost of solid waste disposal will be the responsibility of the commercial property owner, not Frederick County. The actual impact on the landfill will be insignificant. Frederick- Winchester Service Authority: No comments, is now within SWSA. Sanitation Authority: Should the parcel be brought into the SWSA, the cost of extending service will be the developer's responsibility. Currently, there is water and sewer service on the north side of US 50. Frederick Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection as long as public water and sewer are provided. Refer to items D E in the Impact Analysis Statement. Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon buildout. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 3 Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Site in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. It is noted that this property is within the study area of the Second Battle of Kernstown; however, due to the development in this area, it has been deemed to have lost its integrity. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy reference purposes, that the document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the enclosed format. This format has been used in all recent proffer statements. 2. The heading "INTRODUCTION" should be deleted at the beginning of the proffer statement, as the content of the initial paragraphs are substantive paragraphs of the proffer statement. 3. The second paragraph discusses public water and sewer. It appears that public water and sewer is not currently available to the property. At the end of that paragraph it is stated "See Proffer #1." However, Proffer #1 (the only proffer) does not have anything to do with water and sewer. 1 would suggest that a separate proffer be added, under the Proffers section, which provides that development of the property shall not occur, and no site plan shall be submitted, until public water and sewer is available to the property. 4. In the third paragraph, instead of the language "development of this property would require the owner to meet the conditions set forth in this document' at the end of the first sentence, I would suggest the following language the use and development of the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer." 5. In the third paragraph, the second sentence should be deleted, and the following should be added to the end of the first sentence (as hereinabove amended): "...except to the extent that such conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance." 6. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contain a description of the property, to include a description of the general location of the property, the title owner, the acreage and a citation to the land records (deed book and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired title. 7. It is noted that there has been no Generalized Development Plan submitted with these proffers. Therefore, it is noted that this proffer does not commit the applicant to any specific development plan. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated December 8,2005from Susan K Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A -2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Poliev Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1J Land Use The site is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (S W SA), but outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is within the limits of Phase II of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan (revised May 10, 2006). The plan calls for commercial development in the Phase 1I area; therefore, the proposed use is supported in the Round Hill Plan. The Round Hill Plan also recommends a number of design features for commercial development along Route 50. This is to minimize visual disruption and keep Route 50 West from becoming a typical commercial strip. The Plan recommends only one freestanding sign for each property. This is to be a monument style sign, with a maximum sign face of 50 square feet and a maximum height of 12 feet. The plan calls for a 20 foot landscaped strip along Route 50. Included within this strip are to be a sidewalk, ornamental shrubs and street trees. The plan also calls for the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear. (A copy of the adopted Round Hill design standards is included at the end of this report) Staff Note: Along Route 50 the applicant has proffered to provide the landscaped strip with sidewalk as called for in the Round Hill Plan. Signage has been limited. The applicant has not committed to placing the building close to the intersection with the parking behind the building. Transportation The Round Hill Plan calls for "a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages the proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself'. The Plan's standard for this section of Route 50 (which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance Standard) is for commercial entrance spacing of 200 feet. The proposed right -in only Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 5 entrance on Route 50 will be just over 200 feet from the intersection of Round Hill Road. An additional lane will be constructed by the applicant along their frontage on Round Hill Road, and the full entrance on Round Hill Road placed near the southern edge of the property. Route 50 is classified as a minor arterial road. The emerging Eastern Road Plan Generalized Cross Section Designation Map identifies this section of Route 50 as a six -lane divided road section. Staff Note: Improvements to the Route 50 corridor are being pursued by the County and VDOT. These include future road widening and pedestrian signalization at key intersections, such as this one. The applicant has proffered $10,000 towards these improvements. 3) Site Suitability /Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands, floodplain or wetlands on the parcel identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel falls under the Frederick Poplimento Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil types on the site is Frederick Poplimento loam, 14B (2 to 7 slopes) and 1 4C (7 -15% slopes). The characteristics of these soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation A full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not prepared for this project. The traffic impact analysis prepared for this application assumed a maximum land use intensity of 29,480 square feet of retail use. (This is the worst case scenario as called for in the County's rezoning application.) Using trip generation figures from the T.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7 Edition, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 1,700 average daily trips (ADT). As stated in the VDOT comment, this will have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. The applicant has proffered $10,000 towards Route 50 road improvements. B. Sewer and Water The site is within the sewer and water service area (S W SA). As stated in the comment from the Sanitation Authority, the cost of extending water and sewer service will be the developer's responsibility. C. Community Facilities In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by this development to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $1,000. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 6 5) Proffer Statement Dated September 2, 2005 with latest revision dated November 29, 2006 A) Monetary Contribution A contribution of $1,000 has been proffered to Frederick County for the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company. B) Generalized Development Plan (GDP): Dated 11/29/06 The GDP shows the two entrances, the frontage improvements and the sidewalks. C) Restricted Access to Route 50 A right -in only entrance will be provided on Route 50. D) Round Hill Road Improvements A full entrance will be provided on Round Hill Road. The applicant will be constructing a new lane and a sidewalk on Round Hill Road in front of this property. E) Frontage Improvements The applicant will be constructing a curb and gutter along Route 50 and Round Hill Road. F) Design Features Along Route 50, the applicant will be providing a 20 foot landscaped strip with shade trees and evergreen plants. A five foot sidewalk will also be located in that strip. G) Design Features Signage Signage is limited to one monument sign per development with a sign face not to exceed 50 square feet and a height not to exceed twelve feet. H) Monetary Contribution $10,000 will be provided for Route 50 road improvements. I) Parking Two rows of parking and a travel lane will be allowed in front of the building. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/01/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The applicant should be fully addressing the design elements of the Plan, specifically the 20 foot landscaped strip outside of the right of-way and the placement of the building close to Route 50, with the landscaped parking behind the building. The applicant should also provide a sidewalk on Round Hill Road and address the wider transportation needs in the Route 50 Corridor. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/01/06 MEETING: In response to the staff's report, the applicant's representative said that the issues raised by the staff were design issues and they would prefer to address those at the site plan stage because, at this point in time, they are uncertain what the uses will be on the site. Members of the Commission stated that this was the first rezoning coming in for this expanded SWSA area and they expected more to follow. They believed the Commission needed to set a standard with regards to what is expected of applicants to meet the design requirements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Also. with the recent expansion of the SWSA, it was clearly spelled out what the County expected in the way of right -of -way improvements and standards. Commissioners believed that having the design standards in place was paramount for this property to be rezoned. There were no public comments regarding this rezoning during the public hearing. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 30 days to allow the applicant to meet with the staff regarding the design elements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan that were expected to be incorporated on this site with the rezoning of the property. (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: A number of changes were made by the applicant following the 11/01/06 Planning Commission meeting to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The commercial land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. However, the Round Hill Plan specifically calls for commercial buildings to be sited close to Route 50, with the parking behind the building. The applicant is not proposing this site layout. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 12/20/06 MEETING: The applicant's representative stated that prohibiting parking in front of the building would pose design challenges. He specifically cited issues related to required setbacks and storm water management. There were no public comments. Planning Commissioners noted that this was the first application to come forward for a rezoning since the adoption of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan in 2006. Commissioners were clear that they wanted the design standards in the plan followed. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to deny this application because it did not conform to the design standards in the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property February 5, 2007 Page 8 (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) Since the Planning Commission meeting on December 20, staff has met with the applicant's representative to further discuss design standards. Staff shared ideas for how the site could be designed to accommodate B2 uses while providing parking behind the building. The applicant's representative shared with staff his concerns with accommodating the parking in the rear given that it is a small site. Other concerns were the front setback, the marketability of the site with parking in the rear and maximizing the full potential of the site with parking in the rear. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/28/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This application, in terms of use, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The proposal addresses a majority of the design principles contained in the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. The Round Hill plan encourages the placement of commercial buildings close to Route 50, with the parking behind the building. The applicant is seeking to allow two rows of parking in front of the building. In determining an action, the Board might consider if the proposal sufficiently meets the policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and mitigates identified impacts. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. Figure 13B Extract from the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan Adopted May 10, 2006 Design Principles for the Round Hill Route 50 Corridor Street trees in the median, along both sides of the ditch; Freestanding signs one monument sign per development (maximum size 50 feet, maximum height 12 feet); No off premise business signs; Crosswalks at signalized intersections, with signals for pedestrians; Interparcel connectors required between all properties planned for commercial development (even if currently zoned RA and used for residential purposes) to encourage shared entrances; Commercial entrance spacing 200 feet if speed limit is 35 mph or less, 250 feet if speed limit is greater than 35 mph, to encourage shared entrances; A row of evergreens in addition to the ordinance required buffer and screening adjacent to areas planned to remain residential; Underground utilities; Encourage the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear; North side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip, within the landscaped strip a 10 foot asphalt bike trail, ornamental shrubs and street trees along Route 50 South side of Route 50: 50 foot landscaped strip (20 feet for small tracts), within the landscaped strip a 5 foot concrete sidewalk, ornamental shrubs and street trees along Route 50 0 Al 6,„ is i V- r Ga .Y� -tilt %3 ;r r,, t r �x ti Sd� l c F9 Tip k'ir trocet r r 1 r� Y+ 1 N!yt IJ, lt r J(�f r" 3 °F f ir �I s 5 f� y Y 44 y? (`Xa "rI S' I�E1 l L {�•y r r, la Tr r t. n a i jr 1 y+A Es 1a J e1 r 1 Jr t !P' �Fj� t r r I N 1 n T FI}�t 1 t 7 DA I Y y{ lit y J ka 4 t Y•t r r r t�7+• E S r ii WINCHES y T/ t'/ a( J b 1t l lx 4 f, y r• t r. i f rl< f U irf A TERWAREHDUSING 52 +A H� t.2 c' xs 3 'a y a 4 J a `4a c.S r h. rl s rr4ri �r t �r t f k!� �v 1 pfi Zr a ,4 c l t c� r ,3f of i f rr riit, c( 'tm r if 1 1 f T. I T y 3 r V er f FRUI HILLtORCH p /A! a 7 J34 7 l C7 ti a r c Wp tp G 51' A f r1� n' is dnll g j 7 :�r 1{ a/ art, f \unr j� "Cf:,e c GWP 2 tp R k t p f J4J ac F r. t �t/. .F mart 5� a r I r .r 1• <L'r i 10 53 f xY c a' 6.; (gy p. �I ry FI1 ede11 T Y Location in the 8c p County, p p p� t p p k uny A 7 9 Rezoning 14 06 Application G:ai! z Property A 52 A 252 Lountr 7C--------C-3,,,__ !'J pr xjru,. i 'ry -4' Y f r 1{ j e e •.r -+ti• t7 4 bi 4 e 1 J'H w ar r 4 i l 9 G o -i-44 1', l 5 t r T t•. 7 r r 7 "i y. 7. 4 -M a �T iv 1 r.1 I.Nr.,�� ;Lc?? vv- cF 3 t •{(j� I C2 o 5211 A ."`i 1432} s m r hvv 'J7 1 4 �Ltll l li i l ns 3 r r1 1 rkc 1.. l it iry� WP; h 1=-40 r 51 rat Bank 9 f ii'' ti r q� I� Z A l' 15dc V t 'l' ,.r. r sJ h._. 4 7 1A LP 3 Map Features Lakes/Ponds Streams e5 Floo Streets Rimer. Secondary 'b Tertiary wncnester City RalrroadS Property Lines Urban Development Area C.� SW5A fi� r`', FEZ y F` 'G �l ��L •k y u 7 1 1 1 hyr[ a 11,0 :1 H rf .TJ ,*Y r �Y f SIO J. W1 ORL11P riS NCPLL Rn t �'�J..n "1� .Y i 1 c.+- h R(r 1 1 .'t,{1^ t s NC"° ff S T' i ri F 1 ry Rr jcll.. k� a v, d`+ r r�'s... s:��'�.tl 4 j t 0.9: r ti rF r 'J' k 7 F t `I' s A r s• I M, j`''� a' 'rnv 4. 2 G h.'Y I g G to 4 f p it a ''7 h ,w?Tr 1 51 )q•j^�t 1 r s one CCC555 c s SO J Fr .`</h' -1 srd karma ac t y d v�+y��,�ret, s 1 •n"N'H S!en -u iG1` t Sis H s •ti r i gy` i r yn ro r r e r q i t 9-1 t. g -T' P 1 1 1 l c> ate Winchcsic rg,n v a �R r ��1. 4 1. r` s a .:Y'i{''• j rr 2 T f r C 6� l 4� d ear pp �z PEfjRY(/ 53 r '111188 rr.�KK X' i )23/52 5 Rti� 1 A p !',r \Jf�s"F Y„ti y ,.y 1 1r 5p J S 3 4 t t T1 1 "�S `b ���a A ril' 4Y r `T '''a y, `r i C.)..-1--- hr.?. s C 4 F t `1 x t. a 'W t/ e' r' i+ 4 II i E. lO DONNELLI to. P F' -i K� 4 I i r Q. "�4 t .e •rA'.• fit I,r,'J r Y A L ti 'ly a 9±53 A 8 t I 7454 ac O rd F yy v f r y�r y am c, 1 Cl 1 Y ry' 4. i Location in Surrounding Area t= 0 125 250 50ft Feet 4 y i• rr ft 5 1, 04 al) 0 e C_. /I ��I/ii�lllw/ tag ORCHARD FI�edeB P!'�G ®QA QVty °i Rezoning 14 06 Application G la Property `J i�� Parcel ID: 52 A 252 Location in the County Map Features Application 0 B1 a Lakes /Pons O Bt (Business, Neighborhood District) Streams (Business, GeneralDatncl) 0 82 l O Flooplain 0 B3(B (Business, Industrial Transition District) N... Topography O EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) O ME (IndusrEducation st ric) SStreets 0 Mt (Industrial, L'Light Dist District) O Buildings s r r m Pary O M2(Industrial, General District) 1. Secondary Co MHt (Mobile Home Community District) b Tertlary O MS (Medical Support District) Winchester City O R4 (Residential Planned Community District) Railroads O R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) O Properly Lines RA(Rural Areas cl) 7 nUnS2 RP (ResidBDlial Performance District) C b Urban Development Area .7 Bz W W AREHOUSING 5 2,A B A d,,'' 04 f Iii= J c l� a.P t 1\oY(tt 11 e 9 O q q B �I µ'ewlpt IN n 9I J a 111 t �A y t .9. i tt 'tx (cn��ik u �C 9 4- *d,� e�.� I r� 0PD 11 d v J' L ppp 4 y STDNEWALL t till j p N% e.,,,, 8 6:a aASaq 4 P1Ik y fr I J. c WARD PVENO /SH OP IF ...1 O�Y M I 'W //I) 6lc Virginia Qa Location in Surrounding Area 0 125 250 Feet i s xA D O Map Features Application 0 Lakes /Ponds Streams c Flooplain Streets Primary 4 Secondary .1/4. Terciary Winchester City 'may Railroads O Property Lines Landuse .t. Urban Development Area SWSA Glaize Property Parcel ID: 52 A 252 Long Range Land Use Rural Community Center Residential Business Industrial Institutional e' Recreation SaC Historic e Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development Location in Surrounding Area All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: I 7 Name: PC(I n ter LtW is Lc Telephone: 0 /0 62- `s /92 Address: b S S WCt r 1 f r� `S I \AJ Inctle5*er, VA 3 To be completed by Planning Staff.. Zoning Amendment Number PC Hearing Date ll/l /oio z1c /Q.,2 o%4, d(y Fee, Amount Paid D O Date Received '/0 BOS Hearing'Date REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant: 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name:'enrc'e VV. G to j 7Le Tr Address: 30 S ea Inn ev o n St. Wt non estcr, VA 2a t0Oi Telephone: 5 OW SCSS 3. Contact person I if other than above Name: 'JOhn LewlS Telephone: 5 lo‘0 3 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this applicat n. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid v Proffer Statement 11 L OCT 6 2006 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: George 1N C 1Gll -e, Jr- 6. A) Current Use of the Property: RA V O CC V11 B) Proposed Use of the Property: Bust 1�e55 Gay el CC �l b C t 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER SR A 5a -A -1tick vac° nf USE ZONING vp t mainte 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Roof and, Rovrdh 11 RoadL Rt S (I ersec1 oh 12 132 g�- 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: 10. Signature: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi- Family: Non Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: `I'd `%H Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 1 (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. 1 (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. 1 (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): 13 Date: Date: Date: Date: Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Winchester WUtehc0strtct Inc P0. BBox a3(oR Winchester, VA 2 2(oO`J Property# Ca' A- a Nameeo of Vir9ThW PO-60)t S1 VA- ?yYO?. Property# 5 a A 1 IA Name Property Name Property Name Property Name Property Name Property Name Property Name Property Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning 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. 14 02/22/2006 08:42 5406625793 PAINTERLEWIS Plan Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5651 Facsimile 540 665 -15395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) George W Glaize, Jr (Phone) 540 662 5058 (Address) 30 S Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. Parce14:735 LotaS2 Block A Section: 5 a Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (N�) Painter Lewis P L .C. T hone)5He bLoR 5 `1q '2. (Address)1t to G 5tewo rt St WI nchester, VA a WO 1 To act as my true and lawful attorney -m -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of Mad 200 Signature( 1, Mae, A et';: a Notary public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) lmown to me, personally appeared efore me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of 2006) My Commission Expires: 5 7 O Notary Public o i c r)— ti i Stn of Virginia, City/County. o 2,A64,24 To -wit Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia on Page and is described as S Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan PAGE 02 1 380' TO /PF ROUTE 803 /RF IRON ROD FOUND /PF IRON PIPE FOUND FLOOD NOTE: ZONE: C COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 PANEL: 0115 DATE 07 -17 -78 NO IES• PIN 52 -A- COMMONWEALTH OF VRGINIA, DEPAR T OF TRANSPORTATION DB 837 PG 1538 N ZONING: 82 N USE: EXEMPT N 735954" W 241.00' EX /STING DWELLING TO BE R910 VED PLAT OF CONSOLIDA 770N OF 779E LANDS OF INSTRUMENT NUMBER 040025400 INSTRUMENT NUMBER 050002093 GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA MARCH 29, 2005 PIN 52 —A -252 1.3831 ACRES ZONED: RA use RESCE TIAL t I E5 E5 S- I S 73'59'54" E 241.00' U.S. ROUTE 50 NORTHWESTERN PIKE VAR /ABLE WIDTH RAY 1. NO 177ZE REPORT FURN /SHED. 2 PROPERTY /DEN77FICA LION I/O. 52 -A -252 253 3. EASEMENTS MAY EX /ST ?HAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT 1 inch 50 ft. 4. 7715 BOUNDARY INFORMAVON SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE ON MARCH 17, 2005 AND ORIENTED TO A PLAT DATED AUGUST 1, 1961 BY LEE A. EBERT, LS. AND A PLAT DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1994 BY H. BRUCE EDENS, L.5. GEORGE W. GLAIZE, JR. PROFIT SHARING TRUST D 6837A SHEET 2 OF 2 EX/SING DWELL /NG TO BE REMOVED JRF AREA TABULA ?70N ORIGINAL PIN 52 -A -252 32,750 50 FT. VACAT7ON OF PIN 52 -4 -253 27,500 SO. FT ADJUST D PIN 52 -A -252 60,250 50. FT. OR 1.3531 ACRES GRAPHIC SCALE 50 25 50 1 i �H OF p. r 0 A lf e 2 b o ge 1 97 Ar sr 3�z$�d5 t �H111 0. 00 DAF RE D 6837B05 1PF FLOOD NOTE: ZONE. C COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 PANEL: 0115 B DATE 07 -17 -78 N07FS: 1. NO 777ZE REPORT FURNISHED. PIN 5 71A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ,�RTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DB 837 PG 1538 1/ 7359'54" P7 11000' N 735954" W 131.00' I B P/N 52 -A -253 P/N 52 -A -252 2Z560 50. FT. 1 32,750 S0. FT. 1 34.9' 52.3' BOUNDARY SURVEY OF 711E LANDS OF INSTRUMENT NUMBER 040025400 INSTRUMENT NUMBER 050002093 GA/NESBORO /1,4G /S7ER/AL DISIR /CT FREDERICK COUNTY, 14RGIN /A MARCH 21, 2005 0 128 26.0 I[ �>.I 1.3' PORCH -c e't I ONE STORY 1 12 a j eR /CK FRAME Q 3 WCo ASPHALT DRIVEWAY 380' TO /PE S V35954" E 110.00' /RE S 73159'54" E 137.00' ROUTE 803 U.S. ROUTE 50 N NORTHWESTERN P/KE VAR /ABLE W /DTH R/W GEORGE W GLA/ZE, JR. PROFIT SHARING TRUST ONE STORY ER /Cif FRAME HEELING /2255 BRICK WALL 35.0' 1 1 0 N I I(0 0 0 0 12 /RF I I /RF LEGEND /RE IRON ROD FOUND /PF IRON PIPE FOUND 7RB TELEPHONE RISER BOX WC WELL CAP MLR METAL LIGHT POLE tZ- WOOD U77LITY POLE OVERHEAD 1/77LITY LINE GRAPHIC SCALE so o u 50 tag 2 PROPERTY /DEN77F7CA 170N NO. 52 -A -252 253 EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON DRS PLAT. 4. 77/5 BOUNDARY /NFORMA270N SHORT/ HEREON /S BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE ON MARCH 1Z 2005 AND ORIENTED TO ,4 PLAT DATED AUGUST 1, 1961 BY LEE A. EBERT LS. AND A PLAT DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1994 57 H. BRUCE EDEVS, L.S. 1 tech 50 ft. 100 Reviewed Planning Commission: November 1, 2006 Planning Commission: December 20, 2006 Board of Supervisors: January 10, 2007 North: South: East: West: B2 (Business General) B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) B3 (Industrial Transition) REZONING APPLICATION #14 -06 GLAIZE PROPERTY Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: January 3, 2007 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner A This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Action Tabled for 30 days by Planning Commission Recommended denial Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District. with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), Round Hill Road (Route 803) and Retail Boulevard. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52 -A -252 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: Use: Use: Use: Use: Orchard commercial VDOT Facility Commercial Vacant Residential VDOT Facility Rezoning #14 -06. Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial use REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. If Frederick County is satisfied with the amount being offered in Proffer #8 ($10,000.00), then VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers offered in the Round Hill /Glaize Property rezoning application dated November 21, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Water supply (i.e., fire hydrants) will need to be addressed when site plan is submitted. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the 1.38 acre parcel I.D. #52 -A -252 and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to Page 4, Drainage: Offsite drainage easements may be required to accommodate point- source discharges. 2. Refer to Page 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Correct the first sentence to read the nearest citizens' trash...is located on Route 809, McFarland Road, which is off Magic Mountain Road. Actually, the proposed rezoning from RA to B2 will required that the cost of solid waste disposal will be the responsibility of the commercial property owner, not Frederick County. The actual impact on the landfill will be insignificant. Frederick Winchester Service Authority: No comments, is now within SWSA. Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Sanitation Authority: Should the parcel be brought into the SWSA, the cost of extending service will be the developer's responsibility. Currently, there is water and sewer service on the north side of US 50. Frederick Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection as long as public water and sewer are provided. Refer to items D E in the Impact Analysis Statement. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon buildout. Rezoning #14 -06. Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 3 cu Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Site in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. It is noted that this property is within the study area of the Second Battle of Kernstown; however, due to the development in this area, it has been deemed to have lost its integrity. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. 1 would suggest, for uniformity and easy reference purposes, that the document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of'the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the enclosed format. This format has been used in all recent proffer statements. 2. The heading "INTRODUCTION" should be deleted at the beginning of the proffer statement, as the content of the initial paragraphs are substantive paragraphs of the proffer statement. 3. The second paragraph discusses public water and sewer. It appears that public water and sewer is not currently available to the property. At the end of that paragraph it is stated "See Proffer #1." However, Proffer #1 (the only proffer) does not have anything to do with water and sewer. 1 would suggest that a separate proffer be added, under the Proffers section, which provides that development of the property shall not occur, and no site plan shall be submitted, until public water and sewer is available to the property. 4. In the third paragraph, instead of the language "development of this property would require the owner to meet the conditions set forth in this document" at the end of the first sentence, I would suggest the following language: "...the use and development ofthe subject property shall be in strict confomiance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer." 5. In the third paragraph, the second sentence should be deleted, and the following should be added to the end of the first sentence (as hereinabove amended): "...except to the extent that such conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance." 6. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contain a description of the property, to include a description of the general location ofthe property, the title owner, the acreage and a citation to the and records (deed book and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired title. 7. It is noted that there has been no Generalized Development Plan submitted with these proffers. Therefore, it is noted that this proffer does not commit the applicant to any specific development plan. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dined December 8, 2005 from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #14 -06. Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A -2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -1] Land Use The site is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), but outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is within the limits of Phase 11 of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan (revised May 10, 2006). The plan calls for commercial development in the Phase II area; therefore, the proposed use is supported in the Round Hill Plan. The Round Hill Plan also recommends a number of design features for commercial development along Route 50. This is to minimize visual disruption and keep Route 50 West from becoming a typical commercial strip. The Plan recommends only one freestanding sign for each property. This is to be a monument style sign, with a maximum sign face of 50 square feet and a maximum height of 12 feet. The plan calls for a 20 foot landscaped strip along Route 50. Included within this strip are to be a sidewalk, ornamental shrubs and street trees. The plan also calls for the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear. Staff Note: Along Route 50 the applicant has proffered to provide the landscaped strip with sidewalk as called for in the Round Hill Plan. Signage has been limited. The applicant has not committed to placing the building close to the intersection with the parking behind the building. Transporialion The Round Hill Plan calls for "a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages the proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself'. The Plan's standard for this section of Route 50 (which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance Standard) is for commercial entrance spacing of 200 feet. The proposed right -in only Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 5 entrance on Route 50 will be just over 200 feet from the intersection of Round Hill Road. An additional lane will be constructed by the applicant along their frontage on Round Hill Road, and the full entrance on Round Hill Road placed near the southern edge of the property. Route 50 is classified as a minor arterial road. The emerging Eastern Road Plan Generalized Cross Section Designation Map identifies this section of Route 50 as a six -lane divided road section. Staff Note: Improvements to the Route 50 corridor are being pursued by the County and VDOT. These include future road widening and pedestrian signalization at key intersections, such as this one. The applicant has proffered $10,000 towards these improvements. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands, floodplain or wetlands on the parcel identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel falls under the Frederick Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil types on the site is Frederick- Poplimento loam, 14B (2 to 7 slopes) and 14C (7 -15% slopes). The characteristics of these soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation A full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not prepared for this project. The traffic impact analysis prepared for this application assumed a maximum land use intensity of 29,480 square feet of retail use. (This is the worst case scenario as called for in the County's rezoning application.) Using trip generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual. 7 Edition. the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 1,700 average daily trips (ADT). As stated in the VDOT comment, this will have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. The applicant has proffered $10,000 towards Route 50 road improvements. 13. Sewer and Water The site is within the sewer and water service area (SWSA). As stated in the comment from the Sanitation Authority, the cost of extending water and sewer service will be the developer's responsibility. C. Community Facilities In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by this development to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $1,000. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 6 5) Proffer Statement Dated September 2, 2005 with latest revision dated November 29, 2006 A) Monetary Contribution A contribution of $1,000 has been proffered to Frederick County for the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company. B) Generalized Development Plan (GDP): Dated 11/29/06 The GDP shows the two entrances, the frontage improvements and the sidewalks. C) Restricted Access to Route 50 A right -in only entrance will be provided on Route 50. D) Round Hill Road Improvements A full entrance will be provided on Round Hill Road. The applicant will be constructing a new lane and a sidewalk on Round Hill Road in front of this property. E) Frontage Improvements The applicant will be constructing a curb and gutter along Route 50 and Round Hill Road. F) Design Features Along Route 50, the applicant will be providing a 20 foot landscaped strip with shade trees and evergreen plants. A five foot sidewalk will also be located in that strip. G) Design Features Signage Signage is limited to one monument sign per development with a sign face not to exceed 50 square feet and a height not to exceed twelve feet. 1-1) Monetary Contribution $10.000 will be provided for Route 50 road improvements. 1) Parking Two rows of parking and a travel lane will be allowed in front of the building. Staff Note: The Round Hill Plan advocates the placement of buildings close to the street, with parking behind the building. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/01/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The applicant should be fully addressing the design elements ofthe Plan, specifically the 20 foot landscaped strip outside ofthe right of -way and the placement of the building close to Route 50, with the landscaped parking behind the Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 7 building. The applicant should also provide a sidewalk on Round Hill Road and address the wider transportation needs in the Route 50 Corridor. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/01/06 MEETING: In response to the staffs report, the applicant's representative said that the issues raised by the staff were design issues and they would prefer to address those at the site plan stage because, at this point in time, they are uncertain what the uses will be on the site. Members of the Commission stated that this was the first rezoning coming in for this expanded SWSA area and they expected more to follow. They believed the Commission needed to set a standard with regards to what is expected of applicants to meet the design requirements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Also, with the recent expansion of the SWSA, it was clearly spelled out what the County expected in the way of right -of -way improvements and standards. Commissioners believed that having the design standards in place was paramount for this property to be rezoned. There were no public comments regarding this rezoning during the public hearing. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 30 days to allow the applicant to meet with the staff regarding the design elements of the Round Hill Land Use Plan that were expected to be incorporated on this site with the rezoning of the property. (Note: Commissioners Light, Ours and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: A number of changes were made by the applicant following the 11/01/06 Planning Commission meeting to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The commercial land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. However, the Round Hill Plan specifically calls for commercial buildings to be sited close to Route 50, with the parking behind the building. The applicant is not proposing this site layout. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 12/20/06 MEETING: The applicant's representative stated that prohibiting parking in front of the building would pose design challenges. He specifically cited issues related to required setbacks and storm water management. Planning Commissioners noted that this was the first application to come forward for a rezoning since the adoption of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan in 2006. Commissioners were clear that they wanted the design standards in the plan followed. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to deny this application because it did not conform to the design standards in the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property January 3, 2007 Page 8 (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/10/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: NOT CURRENT This application, in terms of use, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, the Round Hill Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, specifically calls for commercial buildings to be sited close to Route 50, with the parking behind the building. The applicant is not proposing this site layout. Since the Planning Commission meeting on December 20, staff has shared with the applicant's representative ideas for how the site could be designed to accommodate B2 uses while providing parking behind the building. Following the required public /rearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: REZONING APPLICATION #14 -06 GLAIZE PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 16, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Reviewed November 1, 2006 December 13, 2006 Action Pending Pending NOT PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), Round Hill Road (Route 803) and Retail Boulevard. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52 -A -252 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) South: B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) East: B3 (Industrial Transition) RA (Rural Areas) West: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Use: Use: Use: Orchard commercial VDOT Facility Commercial Vacant Residential VDOT Facility Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial use REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Glaize Property rezoning application with a revision date of September 1, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request with the exception of the following item: Traffic from this development will have an impact 011 the Route 50 corridor. VDOT believes the applicant should participate in the mitigation of the traffic impacts. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual. Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Water supply (i.e., fire hydrants) will need to be addressed when site plan is submitted. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the 1.38 acre parcel I.D. #52 -A -252 and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to Page 4, Drainage: Offsite drainage easements may be required to accommodate point- source discharges. 2. Refer to Page 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Correct the first sentence to read the nearest citizens' trash .....is located on Route 809, McFarland Road, which is off Magic Mountain Road. Actually, the proposed rezoning from RA to B2 will required that the cost of solid waste disposal will be the responsibility of the commercial property owner, not Frederick County. The actual impact on the landfill will be insigni ficant. Frederick Winchester Service Authority: No comments, is now within SWSA. Sanitation Authority: Should the parcel be brought into the SWSA, the cost ofextending service will be the developer's responsibility. Currently, there is water and sewer service on the north side of US 50. Frederick Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection as long as public water and sewer are provided. Refer to items D E in the Impact Analysis Statement. Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon buildout. Rezoning 414 -06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 3 002' CURRENT Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Site in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. It is noted that this property is within the study area of the Second Battle of Kernstown; however, due to the development in this area, it has been deemed to have lost its integrity. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy- reference purposes, that the document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the details of the zoning, owners, property, etc., be summarized at the beginning as set forth on the enclosed format. This format has been used in all recent proffer statements. 2. The heading "INTRODUCTION" should be deleted at the beginning of the proffer statement, as the content ofthe initial paragraphs are substantive paragraphs of the proffer statement. 3. The second paragraph discusses public water and sewer. It appears that public water and sewer is not currently available to the property. At the end of that paragraph it is stated "See Proffer #1." However, Proffer #1 (the only proffer) does not have anything to do with water and sewer. I would suggest that a separate proffer be added, under the Proffers section, which provides that development of the property shall not occur, and no site plan shall be submitted, until public water and sewer is available to the property. 4. In the third paragraph, instead of the language "development of this property would require the owner to meet the conditions set forth in this document" at the end of the first sentence, I would suggest the following language: "...the use and development of the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in this proffer." 5. In the third paragraph, the second sentence should be deleted, and the following should be added to the end of the first sentence (as hereinabove amended): "...except to the extent that such conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance." 6. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contains a description of the property, to include a description ofthe general location of the property, the title owner, the acreage and a citation to the land records (deed book and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired title. 7. h is noted that there has been no Generalized Development Plan submitted with these proffers. Therefore, it is noted that this proffer does not commit the applicant to any specific development plan. It should be noted that 1 have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated December 8, 2005 from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 4 Planning Zoning: NOT CURRENT 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning neap (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identities the subject parcels as being zoned A -2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. it is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -1/ Land Use The site is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (S WSA), but outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is within the limits of Phase II of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan (revised May 10, 2006). The plan calls for commercial development in the Phase II area; therefore, the proposed use is supported in the Round Hill Plan. The Round Hill Plan also recommends a number of design features for commercial development along Route 50. This is to minimize visual disruption and keep Route 50 West from becoming a typical commercial strip. The Plan recommends only one freestanding sign Mr each property. This is to be a monument style sign, with a maximum sign face of 50 square feet and a maximum height of 12 feet. The plan calls for a 20 foot landscaped strip along Route 50. Included within this strip is to be a pedestrian facility, ornamental shrubs and street trees. The plan also calls for the placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear. Staff Note: The applicant has proffered a 10foot asphalt frail along Route 50. This is shown on the GDP in the public right of-way. This will preclude anticipated road widenings in the future. The applicant has not proffered the 20 foot landscaped urea, which should also be outside of the public right -of -way. (Tire Wal -Mart development has the landscaped area, including the bike path, outside of the right -of -way.) The applicant has proffered parking lot landscaping, although the amount and type of planting is unclear. The applicant should also consider a sidewalk along Round Hill Road. As this area develops commercially, pedestrian movement will be more important. While reduced signage has not been specifically proffered, there is a note on signage on the GDP. Design features should be more carefully considered and the design proffers should he re- written. Rezoning 414 -06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 5 NOT CURRENT Transportation The Round Hill Plan calls for "a transportation network that would feed traffic to and from Route 50 at controlled intersections, and discourages the proliferation of entrances along Route 50 itself'. The Plan's standard for this section of Route 50 (which exceeds the Zoning Ordinance Standard) is for commercial entrance spacing of 200 feet. The proposed right -in only entrance on Route 50 would be approximately 150 feet from the intersection of Round Hill Road. An additional lane will be constructed by the applicant along their frontage on Round Hill Road, and the Pull entrance on Round Hill Road placed near the southern edge of the property. Route 50 is classified as a minor arterial road. The emerging Eastern Road Plan Generalized Cross Section Designation Map identifies this section of Route 50 as a six -lane divided road section. Staff Note: Improvements to the Route 50 corridor are being pursued by the County and VDOT, and have not been addressed by the applicant. These include future road widening and pedestrian signalization at key intersections, such as this one. The applicant should be participating in these efforts. 3) Site Suitability /Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, mature woodlands, floodplain or wetlands on the parcel identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County. Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel falls under the Frederick Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil types on the site is Frederick Poplimento loam, 14B (2 to 7 slopes) and 14C (7 -15% slopes). The characteristics of these soil types and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Potential Impacts A. Transportation A full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not prepared for this project. The traffic impact analysis prepared for this application assumed a maximum land use intensity of29,480 square feet of retail use. (This is the worst case scenario as called for in the County's rezoning application.) Using trip generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7 Edition. the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 1,700 average daily trips (ADT). As stated in the VDOT comment, this will have a measurable impact on Routes 50 and 803. The applicant should be prepared to address all impacts associated with these roads. B. Sewer and Water The site is within the sewer and water service area (S W SA). As stated in the comment from the Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 6 NOT CURRENT Sanitation Authority, the cost of extending water and sewer service will be the developer's responsibility. C. Community Facilities In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by this development to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $1,000. 5) Proffer Statement Dated September 2, 2005 with latest revision dated October 11, 2006 A) Monetary Contribution A contribution of $1,000 has been proffered to the Round Hill Community Fire and Rescue Company. Staff Note: It is County practice to channel cash contributions through County Administration, so that proffers can be enforced. This proffer should be re- worded accordingly. B) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) The GDP shows the two entrances. the frontage improvements and a bike trail. Staff note: The note at the bottom of the GDP appears to confine the signage to one monument sign, 50 square feet in area and 12 feet in height, as per the Round Hill Plan. It would be better if the applicant stated this clearly in the proffer statement. C) Site Access A right -in only entrance will be provided on Route 50. A full entrance will be provided on Round Hill Road D) Road Improvements The applicant will be constructing a new lane on Round Hill Road in front of this property. Staff note: A sidewalk is requested along Round Hill Road VDOT has commented that the applicant should be contributing towards the wider improvements along Route 50, which has yet to be addressed by the applicant. Greater detail of the proffered improvements should be considered. E) Bike Trail The applicant will be constructing a 10 foot asphalt bike trail along Route 50. Parking Lot Landscaping The applicant has proffered parking lot landscaping, although it is unclear what landscaping is being provided. Rezoning #14 -06, Glaize Property October 16, 2006 Page 7 isQT CURRENT STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/01/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed conforms to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. The applicant should be fully addressing the design elements of the Plan, specifically the 20 foot landscaped strip outside of the right of -way and the placement of the building close to Route 50, with the landscaped parking behind the building. The applicant should also provide a sidewalk on Round Hill Road and address the wider transportation needs in the Route 50 Corridor. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.