Loading...
PC 04-03-13 Meeting Agenda AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia April 3, 2013 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) February 20, 2013 Minutes .............................................................................................. (A) 3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Conditional Use Permit #02-13 for Fred Sabia, for a Cottage Occupation – Home Office. The property is located at 102 Caliber Court (Route 1396), and is identified with Property Identification Number 54N-2-5-82 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Mr. Johnston .................................................................................................................... (B) INFORMATION / DISCUSSION ITEMS 6) Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment, CPPA; LFCC/Middletown SWSA, Future Expansion Area – Following on from the recently approved LFCC/Middletown SWSA which created a 138 acre SWSA in the area surrounding, and including the Lord Fairfax Community College, the proposed future expansion area, previously identified as Phase 2, includes an additional 100 acres of business development land uses in support of the College, and a potential expansion of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA. Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (C) 7) Northeast Land Use Plan Update and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) Expansion – As a result of a SWSA Expansion Study in the vicinity of the Light family properties near the intersection of Woodbine and Woodside Roads in the Stonewall Magisterial District, an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan is proposed which supports business development land uses and opportunities, and adds approximately 530 acres into the Sewer and Water Service Area. Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (D) 8) Other 9) Adjourn Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2937 Minutes of February 20, 2013 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 February 20, 2013. 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; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, 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. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director- Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector; and Renee’ S. Arlotta, Clerk. ----------- CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to adopt the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. ------------- MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the minutes of December 5, 2012, and January 2, 2013, were unanimously approved as presented. ------------- COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee – 2/19/13 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported three items on the Transportation Committee’s agenda: 1) Private Streets in the R5 District – moved forward to the Board of Supervisors; 2) Presentation on VDOT’s Route 37 Work – engineered drawings of approximate needed right-of-way; 3) Discussion of I- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2938 Minutes of February 20, 2013 81 Corridor Coalition – Decision to remove Frederick County as an individual member; the County is already a regional member. ------------- Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 2/11/13 Mtg. Commissioner Mohn reported the CPPC discussed a Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment request, which was initiated by the Board of Supervisors, for the Light Property in the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) area, north of Brucetown. The discussion focused particularly on adjusting the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundary to enable subsequent entitlement so the property can be prepared as a “shovel-ready” site for industrial use. Commissioner Mohn said there were questions and discussion and this item will be coming back to the CPPC next month. ------------- Sanitation Authority – 2/19/13 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported rainfall for January was 3.7 inches, which was up by 2.81 inches from the month prior. Water usage at the Diehl Plant was 1.7 mgd; water usage at the Anderson Plant was 2.05 mgd; and slightly over ¾ mgd was purchased from the City. The daily average use is about 4.6 mgd., which is up from the previous month and most likely due to the five house fires that occurred in Frederick County. The Diehl Quarry elevation remained constant at 655 feet; the Anderson Quarry elevation rose about four feet. Commissioner Unger next reported on the Sanitation Authority’s discussion with area water haulers. He said the water haulers want to work with the Sanitation Department for extended hours in the evenings and on weekends to accommodate area construction workers and to serve customers wanting to fill up swimming pools and cisterns. The water haulers requested that at least four hydrants remain open and they were willing to place meters on their trucks to monitor usage. ------------- Winchester City Planning Commission – 2/19/13 Mtg. Commissioner Dave Shore, Liaison from the Winchester City Planning Commission, reported a rezoning application was forwarded to the City Council for 132 apartment units that would be located on Cedar Creek Grade at the Frederick County line. Commissioner Shore noted that in light of the re-opening of the Loudoun Street Mall, the Commission consolidated all of the various mall regulations by several City offices and the Downtown Development Board, into one set of regulations and this was sent forward as an amendment to the zoning ordinance to City Council. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2939 Minutes of February 20, 2013 In addition, Commissioner Shore said the Commission has been receiving and considering a number of applications from telecommunications companies wanting to place cellular antennas on buildings or triple the size of the existing installations. ------------- Committee Appointments Chairman Wilmot announced committee appointments for the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) and the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC). Chairman Wilmot encouraged citizens in Frederick County who may be interested in helping out on either of these two committees to contact the Planning Department staff. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee members: Christopher Mohn, Chairman, Red Bud District; Gary Oates, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Lawrence Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Roger Thomas, ex-officio, Opequon District; June Wilmot, ex-officio, Planning Commission member, At Large; James W. Golladay, Jr., citizen and former Planning Commission member; and Kay Dawson, citizen member. Development Review and Regulations Committee members: Greg Unger, Chairman, Back Creek District; Kevin Kenney, Vice Chairman, Gainesboro District; Kevin Crosen, Back Creek District; Gary Oates, Stonewall District; Roger Thomas, ex-officio, Opequon District; June Wilmot, ex-officio, Planning Commission member, At Large; Jay Banks, citizen member, Back Creek District; Whitney Wagner, citizen member, Stonewall District; and Dwight Shenk, citizen member representing the Top of Virginia. ------------- 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 Comments portion of the meeting. -------------- PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #01-13 of Judy Tingle for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #09-10 enabling an In-Home Family Day Care Facility at 284 Tyler Drive. The request is for the purpose of increasing the number of children being cared for at any given time. The property is identified with P.I.N. 32A-2-18 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning Inspector Dana M. Johnston, reported this application is a request for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #09-10 approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2011, and enabled an In-home Family Day Care Facility. Mr. Johnston said this new CUP Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2940 Minutes of February 20, 2013 request is for the purpose of increasing the number of children being cared for by Mrs. Tingle at any given time from 8 to 12. Mr. Johnston stated the Department of Social Services granted approval to allow Mrs. Tingle to increase her day care capacity to include a maximum of 12 children. He noted the Health Department has no objections to this request. Mr. Johnston commented that staff has not received any complaints about the property as it relates to the in-home day care facility. Mr. Johnston stated if the Planning Commission finds this revision to be appropriate, the staff suggests revising Condition #5 as follows: “Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than 12 children being cared for at any given time.” Commissioner Thomas inquired if the Social Services permit was related or tied to the age of children under care in any way. Mr. Johnston said he was not aware of this in his discussions with the Social Services Manager. Mrs. Judy Tingle, the applicant and owner of the property, said she was licensed to care for children from six weeks up to age 10. Mrs. Tingle said she has one employee. She said the reason for her request to increase the number of children was that some of the parents had babies and they did not want to go to two separate day care centers. Mrs. Tingle said there were three additional children this year. She said she received a letter of authorization from her Social Services State Supervisor stating she is allowed to have up to 12 children. Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or opposition to this request. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. No other questions or issues were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Crockett and seconded by Commissioner Oates, BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #01-13 of Judy Tingle for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #09-10 enabling an In-Home Family Day Care Facility at 284 Tyler Drive with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this conditional use permit shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than 12 children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one employee working at the day care at any time. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2941 Minutes of February 20, 2013 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. ------------- An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District. This ordinance amendment will remove a waiver opportunity in the RA (Rural Areas) District which allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce setbacks for existing lots. Action – Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice Perkins, reported the staff has been asked to remove the waiver opportunity currently contained in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District which allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce the setbacks for an existing lot of record, if an undue hardship exists. Ms. Perkins said this waiver should be eliminated because these types of requests should be handled by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Perkins stated this item was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) at their October 2012 meeting and the Planning Commission discussed this at their meeting on December 5, 2012. She said the Board of Supervisors discussed this item on January 9, 2013; the Board had no changes and forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak either in favor or opposition to this ordinance amendment. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. There were no questions or issues raised by the Planning Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Oates, BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, RA (Rural Areas) District. This ordinance amendment will remove a waiver opportunity in the RA (Rural Areas) District which allows the Board of Supervisors to reduce setbacks for existing lots. The majority vote was: YES (To Recommend Approval) : Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Oates, Crockett, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger NO : Kenney ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2942 Minutes of February 20, 2013 An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Section 801, Master Development Plans. This ordinance amendment will revise and update the master development plan (MDP) submission and processing requirements. This revision also modifies a number of MDP references throughout Chapter 165 to conform to the Section 801 revision. Action – Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this proposed amendment is for a number of changes that revolve around how the staff processes and reviews master development plans (MDP). Ms. Perkins said currently, Frederick County does not process MDPs as outlined in Part 801 of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, the zoning ordinance requires the Planning Commission to make recommendations on plans to the Board of Supervisors and then the Board, under code, is required to approve or deny MDPs. However, due to the fact that MDPs demonstrate compliance with the County Code, they are not scheduled for review until they have satisfied all County agency comments and all staff requirements. Ms. Perkins said MDPs must be in full compliance before they are brought before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; therefore, MDPs are presented as informational items only and action is not taken. Ms. Perkins stated a number of changes to Part 801 were drafted to update the MDP requirements and revise how they are processed; some reorganization of the text was made for clarity as well. She said this amendment was discussed by the Planning Commission on December 5, 2012 and by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 2013. The Board sent the proposed amendment forward for public hearing. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this proposed amendment. The following person came forward to speak: Dr. Mark Byrd, Back Creek District, came forward to speak in opposition to the proposed amendment changes. Mr. Byrd had numerous concerns which included: the proposed changes will leave the determination of MDPs solely to the Planning Department Director and the County Administrator with no Planning Commission oversight; the potential exists for issues to occur with no oversight and no public input; the information the developer must provide, such as a history of past land divisions, ownership, and uses, is difficult for the developer to tract down and is already available in County records; the instructions are vague, there are no time lines for the County to meet; and the amendment is ambiguous and is abusive to the developer, as well as county residents. No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman Wilmot commented this amendment was discussed and passed forward by the Development Review and Regulations Committee. No questions or issues were raised by members of the Planning Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2943 Minutes of February 20, 2013 BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VIII, Development Plans and Approvals, Section 801, Master Development Plans. This ordinance amendment will revise and update the master development plan (MDP) submission and processing requirements. This revision also modifies a number of MDP references throughout Chapter 165 to conform to the Section 801 revision. ------------- Rezoning #09-12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers. The property is located on Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), 700 feet south of the intersection with Cedar Hill Road (Rt. 671), fronting Route 11 and I-81. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 33-A-125 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (This item was tabled for 45 days from the Planning Commission’s January 2, 2013 meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Action – Recommend Denial Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this application was tabled by the Planning Commission on January 2, 2013, to allow the applicant the opportunity to clarify the perceived disconnect between the LOS (Level of Service) within the TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis) and the maximum daily trips proffered, and, in addition, to allow time for the applicant to carry out more discussions with the adjoining property owners on the impacts to their properties. It was also pointed out by staff at the previous meeting that the applicant’s proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads was similar to the approach proffered with Rezoning #18-06 of Woodside Commercial. Mr. Ruddy stated the applicant has now clarified the TIA and the number of trips modeled is accurately consistent with the maximum number of daily trips proffered. The applicant has also revised their proffer statement, dated January 28, 2013, in consideration of neighboring properties. Proffers 5.b. and 5.c. have been added to the modified proffer statement to address future inter-parcel access and timing of construction activities on the site. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating the impacts associated with this request have generally been addressed by the applicant and the adjacent properties have been considered to a greater extent in this rezoning application. With regards to the transportation impacts, it is recognized the applicant has provided proffers aimed at addressing those impacts identified in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the Commission should evaluate if the applicant’s proffered approach of studying and engineering plans for improvements to the intersection of Route 11 and Hopewell and Brucetown Roads sufficiently addresses the impacts identified at this intersection. He noted the acceptable LOS C or better is not achieved at this intersection as identified in the applicant’s TIA. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2944 Minutes of February 20, 2013 Commissioner Thomas raised an issue with the timing of development events. He said the applicant’s trip generation calculation is 6,000 tpd, the projected build-out is 2015, and the applicant has proffered engineering studies 36 months out. Commissioner Thomas pointed out the traffic congestion could potentially be experienced in 2014, the engineering solutions would not be available until 2016, and construction or modification at the intersection would not come, optimistically, until a year later. He suggested the possibility of designating a phased-in development, possibly starting at 2,000 tpd the first year, with 3,000 tpd a year later. Commissioner Thomas asked if the existing intersections would account for the traffic at an acceptable level. Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, stated there were a number of events taking place at the Brucetown/Hopewell intersection, including an economic development access application, followed by another one with the new fiscal year this summer. Mr. Bishop said there was a realistic and good chance the County could get ahead of the applicant’s time line, particularly the engineering. He said this issue has been a concern and could be a problem. Mr. Tim Stowe with Stowe Engineering, PLC was representing this application, and he came forward to address the three issues raised in the staff’s report. Mr. Stowe referred to Table 4 from the TIA t o clarify the perceived disconnect between the TIA and the proffers. He said Table 4 in the TIA shows where the number of vehicles (5,734) is derived and this correlates with Proffer #3. He said the table also shows the am/pm peak hour traffic movements entering and leaving the project. Mr. Stowe next addressed the second issue, which involved meetings with the adjoining property owners. Mr. Stowe reviewed the history of correspondence which had already occurred, starting with letters to the adjoining property owners back to May 12, 2011, followed with letters on July 12, 2011, July 19, 2011, August 19, 2011, and May 16, 2012. He described the details of the correspondence and noted the adjoining property owners were provided with copies of the proffers and application. Mr. Stowe said during this time, three neighborhood meetings were held and one meeting was held in early January. He said there were discussions on selling property and transferring property one way or the other. He said it was his understanding that no firm offers or firm acceptance of those offers were provided. On January 8, 2013, following the Commission’s last meeting when the application was tabled, another letter was sent to the adjoining property owners. On January 31, 2013, a copy of the updated proffers, in response to what was heard at the Commission’s meeting, was provided to the property owners to address noise issues. Mr. Stowe said the applicant has gone through quite extensive lengths to communicate with the property owners about their concerns and to incorporate their concerns into the project. Mr. Stowe continued, referring to the third issue in the staff’s report dealing with the duplication of proffers between this project and the Woodside Commercial Center (Rezoning #01-13) pertaining to the study, engineering, and design of the improvements at the intersection of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. Mr. Stowe said this issue has been addressed and the duplication removed. In response to Commissioner Thomas’ question concerning the timing of the traffic features, Mr. Stowe said the 36-month time frame was used because they anticipate it will be three years to get plans approved through VDOT. Chairman Wilmot commented that access to the applicant’s property is through another property to the south. Mr. Stowe acknowledged this. He said the proffers for the property to the south include a common, shared entrance with access through their property. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2945 Minutes of February 20, 2013 Commissioner Thomas inquired about the inter-parcel connections for the surrounding properties, particularly the Driver’s and Martin’s properties, which were bound by the 2½ acre “no disturbance” area. Mr. Stowe replied the “no disturbance” area was established to protect their drainfields which currently exist under easements. Mr. Stowe said the applicant will need to modify this area in order to provide those properties with access. Mr. Stowe commented this obviously is all predicated on those property owners connecting to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority’s Water and Sewer System so the drainfields can be abandoned. Chairman Wilmot announced the Planning Commission already held a public hearing for this application at their previous meeting; however, she would allow comments from anyone who wanted to address the changes that were made to the proffers and application. The following persons came forward to speak: Mrs. Debra Driver, an adjoining property owner in the Stonewall District, did not believe this latest version of the proffer and application was any better for the adjoining property owners. Ms. Driver said the applicant offered easements to the proposed access road; however, the adjoining property owners will not have access unless they pay to rezone their properties and pay to replace the neighbors’ drainfields. She said this puts the financial burden right back on the adjoining property owners. She said the applicant has offered his property for sale to the adjoining property owners at $1,250,000. Ms. Driver said she made a request to the applicant’s representative for the dump site behind the pine trees to be removed. She was assured this would be taken care of; however, as of today, the dump site had not been removed. Ms. Driver raised the issue of traffic problems that would be created because the property has no access to Route 11, Cedar Hill Road, or Route 81, and is currently land-locked. She asked why the County would want to destroy a residential area when all the pieces are not yet in place. She asked why potential customers would want to drive through a B3-zoned property to shop at a B2-zoned property. She said this application is about an investor wanting to make money in Frederick County with no regards to the quality of life for the adjoining property owners. Ms. Driver asked for her Stonewall District representative and the entire Planning Commission to deny this application. Ms. Elizabeth Regan, Stonewall District, said she was present to read a letter of opposition from Ms. Elaine MaGee, an adjoining property owner, who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. The primary issues stated in Ms. MaGee’s letter were: this rezoning application does not improve or protect the living environment for the adjoining property owners and is contrary to one of the primary goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; transportation has not been adequately addressed; the traffic signal at the Brucetown/Hopewell intersection has not improved the traffic congestion; traffic congestion is worse if there is an accident on I-81 and traffic is diverted to Route 11; concern about possible damage to foundations during construction; and problems with access. Mr. Mark Regan, an adjoining property owner in the Stonewall District, was opposed to the rezoning and believed the application had gotten worse with the revisions. Mr. Regan said the jackhammer noise at the new warehouse, located about ¾ mile from hi s home, continued last evening. Mr. Regan said he notified the Sheriff, who indicated there was nothing he could do. Mr. Regan remarked that the noise coming from this construction site at all hours of the day and night is criminal. Mr. Regan implored the Commission to consider the adjoining property owners, who are taxpaying citizens, and to represent them in their opposition to this rezoning. Mr. Daniel Schall, an adjoining property owner, said he was opposed to the rezoning and had the same reservations as those expressed by the other property owners. Mr. Schall asked why this application was being considered again when it was previously denied. His understanding was the only Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2946 Minutes of February 20, 2013 difference is the access is being moved further down Route 11, making it legal, but it is on someone else’s property. He remarked that if this property is rezoned, there is still no access until someone else builds an access road for the applicant to tie into. Mr. Schall said the proposal is for a B2 small business and customers would have to drive through a B3 zone where there will be heavy equipment and noise; one certainly would not want to place a hotel back there. Mr. Schall said about half of the property will not be able to be used because of the drainage easements. There are no specific types of businesses being offered; he believed the applicant simply wanted to rezone the property to sell it. If this was the case, he was concerned about what would go in there in the future. Mr. Schall said he did not want to sell his property. He said the access road could never go through unless the County would force him out of his house. He said without an access, there should be no rezoning. Mr. Schall believed the application was a waste of everyone’s time; he said this has been gone over and over again and is still a bad idea. It has created considerable aggravation on the part of the adjoining property owners who have to keep coming out time and time again. He asked the Commission to consider the taxes the adjoining property owners have been paying for years. Another citizen, who did not give his name, stated he was a small business owner in Frederick County. He said economic growth is needed to build the County; however, he did not think this particular rezoning made sense. He said there is no way in and no way out; traffic congestion in this area is horrific; and traffic is backed up across the railroad tracks. He said the Commission should consider the existing available B2 structures for sale or lease and what the local law enforcement needs to watch over. He was strongly opposed to the rezoning and asked the Commission to recommend denial. Mr. Stowe returned to the podium to respond to some of the comments made. Mr. Stowe said the concern about noise is very real and the sound of construction all night long is not pleasant. Mr. Stowe wasn’t sure if there is anything Frederick County can do about the noise Mr. Regan is experiencing or not, but it is something the applicant takes seriously. Mr. Stowe said this is one of the reasons the applicant changed the proffers to exclude certain businesses in order to make sure noise did not occur next to the adjoining property owners’ homes, while they are trying to have family time or settle down for the evening. Mr. Stowe said access to this property has already been established through a previous rezoning with proffers on record. Mr. Stowe said the parcel to the south has a proffer which allows this applicant to come across his property with an inter-parcel connector and connect out to Martinsburg Pike and this is what the applicant intends to do. Mr. Stowe said if the applicant, Mr. Vihidi, develops his property first, by 2014 or 2015, he will have to build the road himself on the adjoining owner’s property. He said if the adjoining owner develops his property first, he may have to build the road at his expense. Mr. Stowe said there is legal access established to this property and to say there is not access is incorrect. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification. He said if the Clearbrook Business Center does not develop before the Clearbrook Retail Center, the owner of the Clearbrook Retail Center would build the Wes-Luke Drive connection and the Lauren Way connection, which is an expensive undertaking. Mr. Stowe replied that Mr. Thomas’ understanding was correct. Commissioner Crockett commented the TIA indicates the Hopewell/Brucetown Road intersection does not meet an acceptable LOS C and he asked Mr. Bishop to explain LOS C. Mr. Bishop replied it is related to the time delay waiting at a signalized intersection. Mr. Stowe added the time delay for LOS C is 25 seconds; he said this is the maximum amount of time a vehicle would wait and still be in a LOS C. Mr. Stowe said the Hopewell intersection currently has a LOS E in its delay. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2947 Minutes of February 20, 2013 Commissioner Unger remarked that after listening to all of the citizen comments and considering this project, he could not support this application. He said it would negatively impact too many of the residents and he didn’t see how the County would benefit that much from the rezoning. He said it didn’t appear to be a beneficial project. Commissioner Thomas said the developer has cleared up some of the inconsistencies in the TIA, but the clarifications of those discrepancies doesn’t eliminate the traffic problems that currently exist and that will be exacerbated by additional development. Commissioner Thomas thought this project could be one of the better uses for this property; however, he didn’t think the timing was right for this. He said the traffic problems on Route 11 are bad enough now and if another 5,000 trips are generated there, along with the Clearbrook Business Center developing, the traffic problems are going to get much worse before they get better. He asked if it was reasonable to plan and allow a project to be built which may cause problems and inconvenience; he said five residents will be inconvenienced immediately. Commissioner Mohn agreed with the other Commissioners. He stated, to some degree, even with the limitations of the project, this rezoning is an open-ended land use equation at this site. He said for something that will have such a significant impact on existing residents, he believed it was premature, given the conditions discussed thus far, particularly with regard to transportation. Commissioner Mohn believed it might make a difference in the future to have a better idea of what use was anticipated there. He commented the Commission doesn’t know what the use might be, only the two uses that won’t be there. He noted that when the Commission is considering a project and how the use may interact with existing residents, and also how it will contribute to the conditions and the surrounding community, the Commission needs to know more to be able to feel comfortable and confident with supporting development of this site at this point in time. Commissioner Mohn said he also would not be able to support this application. Commissioner Crockett also agreed with what the previous Commissioners stated. Commissioner Crockett said he could not make a recommendation on this application. Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend denial of this rezoning to the Board. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning #09-12 of Clearbrook Retail Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 14.53 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO RECOMMEND DENIAL) : Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Crockett, Crosen, Unger NO : Kenney, Manuel, Ambrogi ABSTAIN ------------- : Oates Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2948 Minutes of February 20, 2013 Rezoning #01-13 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by Grey Wolfe, Inc., to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #08-06, relating to the transportation section. The property is located on the east side of Route 11 and 3,000+ feet north of Hopewell Road (Rt. 672), also known as Exit 321 off I-81. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 33-A-124A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Approval Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this rezoning application is related to the previous rezoning and it is a minor revision to the proffer statement approved with Rezoning #18- 06. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant is seeking to replace proffer 1.e. from the Transportation Section with a comparable monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements. He explained the original proffer 1.e. to be replaced was a provision for the applicant to present engineering and surveying services prior to the first site plan or at the request of the County. He noted the monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements is to be paid prior to the first occupancy permit. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has provided estimates for the services as a representation of the value of the original proffer. Commissioner Thomas raised a question about whether use of the money would be restricted to a particular area or intersection or would it be placed in a general fund, in light of the applicant’s wording that the $75,000 was for road improvements and made prior to the first occupancy permit. Commissioner Thomas also commented since there is no timing for the first occupancy permit, it could be 2015 or as late as 2030 before the proffer is received. He said it was a later time frame than the original proffer. Mr. Ruddy said the money would go into a general fund, but would be applicable to this general area and needs to be in the vicinity of the project where the impact would be generated. Because the timing of the contribution is related to the first building permit, it may delay finding a solution to the improvements needed at the intersection. Deputy Director-Transportation, Mr. John Bishop, said he did not tend to look favorably on proffers of study, especially when the County is actively working on trying to acquire economic access funds, potentially for solutions at Brucetown and Hopewell Roads. Mr. Bishop believed the money is more useful in this endeavor to move the project forward, as opposed to passing off design and engineering to others. He said his main concern with this particular proffer modification wasn’t that the applicant was switching over to a monetary contribution, as it provides more flexibility to match those dollars up against other pots of money, but his concern had to do with pushing out the time line. Currently, the time line is favorable in terms of when the County asks for the proffer, they will receive it. He commented the BPG project is moving forward and they have recently paid a fairly significant proffer, which the County is able to leverage against other dollars and, hopefully, will be able to move forward to accomplish this endeavor. Commissioner Madagan asked Mr. Bishop which offer was more important, the cash or to get the engineering done. Mr. Bishop said whichever one he could acquire sooner would be better; however, he would work with whatever can be attained. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2949 Minutes of February 20, 2013 Commissioner Mohn stated based on Mr. Bishop’s comments, while the two proffers may be similar in value, it seems to some degree the cash proffer holds more value for the County. He believed this was a good request and a good proposal on the part of the applicant in this case, with Mr. Bishop’s concerns notwithstanding. Other Commissioners agreed and believed the revision was appropriate. Commissioner Crockett made a motion to recommend approval. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #01-13 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by Grey Wolfe, Inc., to revise proffers associated with Rezoning #08-06, by replacing proffer 1.e. from the Transportation Section of the previous Rezoning #18-06 with a comparable monetary contribution in the amount of $75,000 for road improvements. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL) : Mohn, Triplett, Kenney, Thomas, Wilmot, Crockett, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger NO : Madagan ABSTAIN : Oates ------------- Subdivision #06-12 and Waiver Request of 300N, LLC, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to create two lots and to request a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Section 144-24, Lot Requirements, (C) Lot Access. This property is located on the east side of Front royal Pike (Rt. 522) at 186 Wincrest Drive. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 64- 1-A1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Approval of Waiver of the Public Road Requirement Action – Recommend Approval to Grant Administrative Approval Authority Commissioners Manuel and Oates both said they would abstain from all discussion and voting on this subdivision and waiver request application due to a possible conflict of interest. Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this application is for the subdivision of a 6.67+-acre parcel into two parcels consisting of 4.373 acres and 2.294 acres. Mr. Cheran noted the parcels are located in the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). He said the property has met and been granted a waiver from the MDP (master development plan) requirements. In addition, the applicant has requested a waiver from Section 144-24C of the subdivision ordinance which requires all new parcels abut and have direct access to a state-maintained public street or road. The applicant would like to allow these parcels to be served by a private access. Access to these parcels will be via the existing private 60-foot ingress/egress (Wincrest Drive) from Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522S). Mr. Cheran said the staff is seeking two actions from the Planning Commission: 1) a recommendation from the Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2950 Minutes of February 20, 2013 Planning Commission regarding the waiver of the public road requirement; and 2) a recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for a two-lot subdivision. Commissioner Unger had questions about whether additional development could occur on the lot in the rear; he was concerned about the potential for creating traffic problems on Route 522. Staff noted the owner has by-right development rights under the B3 zoning and can fully develop the property with site plan approval. Staff pointed out the owner is simply requesting a waiver so they will not have to construct a public street. Staff noted that Wincrest Drive will still have to be built to private road standards with an asphalt environment. Staff added this was a grandfathered site and a lumber yard was there for many years. Members of the Planning Commission believed this waiver made sense for this particular site, since the owner can, by right, develop this property, and traffic concerns will not be mitigated if the waiver is or is not granted. Commissioner Madigan made a motion to recommend approval of the waiver of the public road requirement. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. Commissioner Madigan next made a motion to recommend approval of allowing administrative approval authority for the two-lot subdivision. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision #06-12 and Waiver Request of 300N, LLC, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to create two lots and to allow a waiver of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Section 144-24, Lot Requirements, (C) Lot Access. (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Oates abstained from discussion and voting.) ------------- OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE MARCH 6, 2013 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no action items pending for the Planning Commission’s March 6, 2013 meeting. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to cancel the Planning Commission’s March 6, 2013 meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Madagan and unanimously passed. ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2951 Minutes of February 20, 2013 ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Mohn and second by Commissioner Manuel, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ June M. Wilmot, Chairman ____________________________ Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-13 FRED SABIA Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 12, 2011 Staff Contact: Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector 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 request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Planning Commission: 04/03/13 Pending Action Board of Supervisors: 04/24/13 Pending EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Cottage Occupation – Home Office – Counseling Service. Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than six (6) clients per day. 3. The applicant shall provide two (2) parking spaces for this use. 4. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and one additional Saturday a month from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 5. No signage permitted. 6. Other than those residing on the property, there shall be no additional employees. 7. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. Page 2 CUP #02-13, Fred Sabia March 12, 2013 LOCATION : This property is located at 102 Caliber Court (Route 1396) (Star Fort). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER : 54N-2-5-82 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE : Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE : North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence East: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residence PROPOSED USE : This application is for a Cottage Occupation – Home Office – Counseling Service. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Caliber Court, Route 1396, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. However, VDOT has concerns about parking as the existing shoulders are not designed for routine parking. Applicant needs to ensure there is sufficient off-street parking for clients as well as occupants of the house. Should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT commercial standards. Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approved provided that there is at least one functioning smoke detector and one 5 lb. ABC fire extinguisher in the office area. Frederick County Inspections: The area being utilized shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 304-B, Business Use Group of the International Building Code/2009. Other Code that applies is ICC/ANSI A117.1-03 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Change of Use for Conditional Use of Counseling services within existing Residential R5 shall comply with ANSI A117 and International Building Code for door entrance and stairway requirements. Handrails shall be provided on both sides of stairway and shall comply with the International Building Code/Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code 2009. ANSI Accessibility shall be addressed on the building plans submitted for permitting. Please submit floor plan at time of application for building permit application. Plan should Page 3 CUP #02-13, Fred Sabia March 12, 2013 indicate materials used in constructing any partitions or infill of wall areas. (i.e., 2x4 @24” oc.) Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Per your request, a review of the proposed conditional use has been performed. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the Authority’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area and is presently serviced by the Authority. Based on the anticipated usage, water and sanitary sewer capacity is available and should have minimal effect on our system. Planning and Zoning: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a marriage and family counseling office within the residence. Cottage occupations are allowed within the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This proposed use is located within the Star Fort Subdivision and has direct access off of Caliber Court on an existing driveway, and at least two (2) parking spaces will be required for use. The applicant wishes to have no more than six (6) clients per day, and is requesting that hours of operation be limited to Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and one additional Saturday per month from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The applicant has opted to have no signs with this use and no additional employees. The property is surrounded by residential properties, and based on the limited scale of this proposed use and evaluation of the property, it appears that this proposed use would not have any significant impact on the adjoining properties. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/03/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING : Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following conditions be placed on the CUP: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. No more than six (6) clients per day. 3. The applicant shall provide two (2) parking spaces for this use. 4. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and one additional Saturday a month from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 5. No signage permitted. 6. Other than those residing on the property there shall be no additional employees. 7. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit. Page 4 CUP #02-13, Fred Sabia March 12, 2013 Following the requisite public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors. FO R T R E S S D R CALIBER C T 54N24A 81 54N24A 80 54N 26 135 54N 22 39 54N 25 84 54N 25 83 54N 25 82 54N 22 28 54N 22 40 54N 22 29 54N 25 87 54N 25 8854N 22 30 54N 22 41 54N 22 31 54N 25 9054N 25 89 CUP0213 Applications Parcels Building Footprints B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) I Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: March 12, 2013Staff: djohnston LAU C K D R FO R T R E S S D R N FRED E R I C K P I K E DARLINGTON DR SENT I N E L D R SA L V O C I R PUR C E L L L N WILLIA M S C I R SENTRY CT CALIBER C T WI L L I A M S P L BLACKPO W D E R C T N FRED E R I C K P I K E CUP # 02 - 13Fred SabiaPINs:54N - 2 - 5 - 82Cottage Occupation - Office CUP # 02 - 13Fred SabiaPINs:54N - 2 - 5 - 82Cottage Occupation - Office 0 60 12030 Feet c APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Future Expansion PC/BOS Draft March 18, 2013 Future Expansion Area The area immediately to the north of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA was evaluated for potential inclusion into the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA Area Plan following the approval of the Area Plan by the Board of Supervisors on November, 2012. This section, Future Expansion Area, is the resulting addition to the plan which provides guidance to the adjacent property owners regarding the future land uses. The policies established in the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA Area Plan guiding transportation and the provision of public water and sewer would apply to this area of future expansion. The actual expansion of the SWSA line would occur in the future with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. (Added 01/09/13) - The Board of Supervisors should determine if this SWSA modification should occur at this time with the approval of the Future Expansion Area addition. The future expansion area is approximately 100 acres in size and is contiguous to the existing Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA. The future land use in this area is envisioned to promote areas of business development in support of the adjacent land use, Lord Fairfax Community College. The business development land uses may include a variety of support services to programs offered at the College, including but not limited to, Health Care, Life Sciences, and Technology. Other independent business development land uses may promote the mixed use industrial/office land use classification of the Comprehensive Plan, the OM Park District, which is designed to provide for areas for research-and-development centers, office parks, and minimal impact industrial and assembly uses. It is recognized that zoning districts other than the OM district may be proposed provided they support business development and the college. All of the above would provide opportunities for workforce development associated with Lord Fairfax Community College. Residential land uses are not proposed in this area. The area to the west of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is not envisioned to be included in the Area Plan. Route 11, Valley Pike, will continue to be the western boundary of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA. The land in this area to the west of Route 11, Valley Pike, is rural in character and maintaining it in its current state would reinforce the rural and historical character of the land, and would preserve the vistas to the west. In addition, it is recognized that there are environmental features in this area as Meadow Brook and its associated floodplain bisects the area from north to south. The area is further constrained by the railroad tracks that also parallel Route 11, Valley Pike. 0111 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 ST627 STT-627 STT-627 ST842 PERSHINGMILL LN CARO L Y N A V E M A R K D R RIEN Z I K N O L L L N QUIN C E Y MILL C T CO U G I L L R D HAZ E L M I L L L N MAIN S T WA Y S I D E MIL L L N I81, W E I G H S T A T I O N M U S T A N G L N CON F I D E N C E L N R E L I A N C E R D RILE Y M I L L L N LARR I C K L N VALL E Y PIKE N BU C K T O N R D Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA Boundary Building Footprints Parcels Employment Airport Support Area B2 / B3 Mixed-Use Industrial Mixed-Use Industrial Office Residential, 4 u/a High-Density Residential, 6 u/a High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a Mixed-Use / High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a Institutional Urban Center Rural Area Interstate Buffer Park Natural Resources & Recreation Landfill Support Area I Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: January 09, 2013Staff: mruddy Middletown VALL E Y P I K E CO U G I L L R D N BU C K T O N R D MINERA L S T RI D I N G S M I L L R D I81, W E I G H S T A T I O N 0111 MAIN S T RI D I N G S M I L L R D FI R S T S T R E L I A N C E R D Middletown / Lord Fairfax SWSA Middletown / Lord Fairfax SWSA 0 1,300 2,600650 Feet 100.91 Ac. 17.41 Ac. Future Expansion Area Insitutional Mixed-Use Industrial/Office APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Future Expansion PC/BOS Draft March 18, 2013 MIDDLETOWN/LORD FAIRFAX SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA Lord Fairfax Community College (LFCC) is a comprehensive, multi-campus public institution of higher education. Through its three locations — the Fauquier and Middletown Campuses and the Luray-Page County Center — the College serves eight localities in the Shenandoah Valley and Piedmont regions. The localities are the counties of Clarke, Fauquier, Frederick, Page, Rappahannock, Shenandoah and Warren and the city of Winchester. Frederick County’s Middletown Campus is located at 173 Skirmisher Lane, Middletown, Virginia. The Middletown campus has grown since it was founded in 1970 into the campus illustrated in the following site plan. LFCC is looking to expand its facilities on its current property and on property owned by the LFCC Foundation. The Middletown Elementary School is located immediately north of Lord Fairfax Community College and is one of eleven elementary schools operated by Frederick County Public Schools serving elementary aged children in Frederick County. APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Future Expansion PC/BOS Draft March 18, 2013 The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is an important policy tool used by Frederick County to determine where public water and sewer service may be provided. The Board of Supervisors approves the location of the SWSA boundaries through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and amendments thereto. As a result, properties located within the SWSA may enjoy access to public water and sewer. Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA The Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA has been established to enable the provision of public water and sewer in the area north of the Town of Middletown to current and future institutional land uses, including Lord Fairfax Community College and the Middletown Elementary School. The supporting map identifies the location of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA boundary. Future study of the area surrounding the Town of Middletown may identify additional properties that could be added to the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA, if deemed appropriate by the Board of Supervisors. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has the primary responsibility to manage the provision of water and sewer in Frederick County, and therefore, within the SWSA. In some cases, other public entities may serve properties within Frederick County, if approved by the Board of Supervisors. Lord Fairfax Community College currently obtains water from the City of Winchester, and the Town of Middletown receives their wastewater. The FCSA has expressed that, at this time, they have no desire to serve this area of Frederick County. However, nothing would preclude the FCSA from serving this area in the future if it is deemed necessary and appropriate. The approval of this plan by the Board of Supervisors would allow the City of Winchester and the Town of Middletown to continue to serve the properties with water and sewer, respectively. It is recognized that properties owned by the State of Virginia are preempted from local control by Frederick County. Frederick County and Lord Fairfax Community College will continue to work collaboratively on issues related to the growth and development in this area of Frederick County. Frederick County uses the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to guide the future land uses. The Town of Middletown’s Foresight Middletown plan, which was adopted into the Town’s Comprehensive Plan in 2005, guides the future land uses within the Town and was considered when drafting this plan. Land Use APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Future Expansion PC/BOS Draft March 18, 2013 The area encompassed by the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is envisioned to promote the continued growth of institutional land uses that enhance the existing educational institutions; Lord Fairfax Community College and the Middletown Elementary School. To that end, the plan calls for the establishment of approximately 140 acres of institutional land use that will serve the citizens of Frederick County and the broader region. Institutional land uses are defined as a nonprofit or quasi-public use or institution, such as a church, library, public or private school, hospital or municipally owned or operated building, structure or land used for public purposes. Institutions of higher education are defined as an educational institution whose primary purpose is to provide a collegiate or graduate education. The Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is immediately north of the Town of Middletown and is bounded by Route 11, Valley Pike, to the west, and Interstate 81 to the east. Access to the area is via Route 11, Valley Pike. Route 11, Interstate 81, and Exit 302, are strong assets to the areas’ transportation network, and to the success of the institutional uses envisioned for this area. It will be important to ensure the function of this transportation network. Transportation In rapidly growing areas, as noted in the Foresight Middletown plan, controlling and coordinating the number, design and location of new access points to major roadways is critical to maintaining the safety and capacity of the road system as traffic volumes increase. Accordingly, access to Valley Pike, Route 11, should be managed and limited. In the future, internal connections within the institutional land uses should be considered. In addition, the primary route to this area from Interstate 81 should be enhanced to safely and effectively manage the traffic and to reflect the Foresight Middletown plan as a means to create an attractive entrance to the Town and this developing area. Consistent application of Comprehensive Plan goals to achieve an acceptable level of service on area roads and overall transportation network, level of service C or better, should be promoted. Further, efforts should be made to ensure that additional degradation of the transportation beyond an acceptable level of service shall be avoided. Consideration of future development applications within the study area should only occur when an acceptable level of service has been achieved and key elements and connections identified in this plan have been provided. D ³n ³n [j ³n³n ³n [j[j [jCity of Winchester StephensonRural CommunityCenter Clear Brook & BrucetownRural CommunityCenterST672 ST669 ST671 ST820 ST660 ST659 ST661 ST665 ST663 ST654 ST739 ST673 ST656 ST664 ST676 ST672 ST661 ST659 ST661 ST672 ST669 ST661 ST663 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 0111 0137 017 01522 017 Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles µ Land Use Legend ³n Existing Elementary ³n Existing High School ³n Future Elementary [j Future Park Eastern Road Plan New Major Arterial Improved Major Arterial New Minor Arterial Improved Minor Arterial New Major Collector Improved Major Collector New Minor Collector Improved Minor Collector Ramp Trails Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Area Plan Sewer and Water Service AreaUrban Development Area Future Rt 37 Bypass Business Mixed-Use Mixed Use Commercial \ Office Highway Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation Natural Resources & Recreation Park Fire & Rescue Institutional RuralCommunityCenter DSA - Historic Resources & Recreation School Extractive Mining Heavy Industrial Mixed Use Industrial \ Office wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Warehouse Industrial Residential Planned Unit Development Mixed Use Age Restricted Urban Center Neighborhood Village 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map Approved: July 14th, 2011 Draft Update March 2013 City of Winchester StephensonRural CommunityCenter Clear Brook & BrucetownRural CommunityCenterST672 ST669 ST671 ST820 ST660 ST659 ST661 ST665 ST663 ST654 ST739 ST673 ST656 ST664 ST676 ST672 ST661 ST659 ST661 ST672 ST669 ST661 ST663 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 0111 0137 017 01522 017 Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0.5 10.25 Miles µ Sewer and Water Service AreaUrban Development Area New Major Arterial Improved Major Arterial New Minor Arterial Improved Minor Arterial New Major Collector Improved Major Collector New Minor Collector Improved Minor Collector Ramp Trails Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Transportation Map Area Plan 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map Approved: July 14th, 2011 Draft Update March 2013 City of Winchester StephensonRural CommunityCenter Clear Brook & BrucetownRural CommunityCenterST672 ST669 ST671 ST820 ST660 ST659 ST661 ST665 ST663 ST654 ST739 ST673 ST656 ST664 ST676 ST672 ST661 ST659 ST661 ST672 ST669 ST661 ST663 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 0111 0137 017 01522 017 Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0.5 10.25 Miles µ Sewer and Water Service AreaUrban Development Area Proposed Lane Divides 4 Lane Limited Access w/ CD Lanes (if required) 6 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Transportation Map - Lane Divides Area Plan 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map Approved: July 14th, 2011 Draft Update March 2013 City of Winchester StephensonRural CommunityCenter Clear Brook & BrucetownRural CommunityCenterST672 ST669 ST671 ST820 ST660 ST659 ST661 ST665 ST663 ST654 ST739 ST673 ST656 ST664 ST676 ST672 ST661 ST659 ST661 ST672 ST669 ST661 ST663 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 0111 0137 017 01522 017 Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0.5 10.25 Miles µ Area Plan Sewer and Water Service Area Facilities ³n Existing Elementary ³n Existing High School ³n Future Elementary [j Future Park Community Facilities Elementary School Future Elementary School Middle School High School Fire & Rescue Station Park Future Park Water Resources Area Natural Resource & Recreation Areas Developmentally Sensative Areas Rural Community Center Urban Development Area Future Rt 37 Bypass Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Community Facilities Natural and Recreational Resources Plan 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map Approved: July 14th, 2011 Draft Update March 2013 0111 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 ST669 ST671 ST672 ST669 BERKELEY COUNTYWEST VIRGINIA Proposed SWSA Boundary Parcels Potential_Industrial Business Mixed-Use Mixed Use Commercial \ Office Highway CommercialwwwwwwwwwwwwWarehouse Industrial Heavy Industrial Mixed Use Industrial \ Office Extractive Mining Residential Planned Unit Development Mixed Use Age Restricted Urban Center Neighborhood Village Recreation Commercial Recreation Natural Resources & Recreation Park Historic \ DSA Fire & Rescue Institutional School Rural Community Center I Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: March 05, 2013Staff: mruddy Clear Brook WOOD S I D E R D MA R T I N S B U R G P I K E GRA C E C H U R C H R D WOODBINE RD R U E B U C K L N T H I S T L E L N SIR JOH N S R D BRANSON S P R I N G R D Potential SWSA Boundary withIndustrial Land Use Designation Potential SWSA Boundary withIndustrial Land Use Designation 0 2,400 4,8001,200 Feet 0111 §¨¦81 §¨¦81 ST669 ZA C H A R Y AN N L N GILL I E L N BRANSONSPRING RD WOODBINE RD MA R T I N S B U R G PIK E WOO D S I D E R D GRACE C H U R C H R D BERKELEYCOUNTYWEST VIRGINIA CPPA LightProperty34 1 A CPPA LightProperty34 A 8A CPPA LightProperty34 A 129F CPPA LightProperty34 A 129I CPPA LightProperty34 A 129E CPPA LightProperty34 A 6B CPPA LightProperty34 A 129G CPPA LightProperty34 A 7 CPPA LightProperty34 A 129A Applications Parcels B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) I Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: December 27, 2012Staff: elawrence Clear Brook WOOD S I D E R D MA R T I N S B U R G P I K E GRA C E C H U R C H R D WOODBINE RD R U E B U C K L N T H I S T L E L N SIR JOH N S R D BRANSON S P R I N G R D CPPA Resolution Light Properties CPPA Resolution Light Properties 0 1,500 3,000750 Feet