PC 02-03-10 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
February 3, 2010
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) December 2, 2009............................................................................................................ (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Conditional Use Permit #01-10 for Shenandoah Valley Westminster -Canterbury, for
an Off Premises Sign. The property is located at 1379 North Frederick Pike, at the
intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522) and Westminster -Canterbury Drive
(Route 1318), and is identified with Property Identification Number 53A -A-5 in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) 2010-2011 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP is a prioritized list of capital
projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies. The Plan is created as
an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. If
adopted, the CIP is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C)
7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article I General Provisions,
Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 102 Amendments, 165-102.05
Impact Analysis; Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VIII Development Plans and
Approvals, Part 801 Master Development Plans, 165-801.06 Preliminary Master
Development Plan - Part 802 Site Plans, 165-802.02 Site Plan Applications; Review;
and Chapter 144 Subdivision of Land, Article IV Subdivision Review Procedures,
144.12 Subdivision Design Plan — Revisions to the Frederick County Ordinance to add
references to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards for the rezoning, master
development plan, site plan and subdivision design plan sections of the ordinance.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Other
FILE COPY
�7
•
•
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMNIISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on December 2, 2009.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/ Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas-, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Richard
Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back
Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner;
John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the December 2, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting.
MEETING MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan, the
Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the October 7, 2009 meeting.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Madagan, the
Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the October 21, 2009 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2513
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee -11/23/09 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed and acted on
the following five items: 1) agreed to allow at least six months to see if the truck warning signs on
Double Church Road will work before going through the process of restricting trucks; 2) recommended
that the Board of Supervisors make a:request to VDOT to vacate the portion of road in front of the
proposed Walgreens on Dairy Comer Lane in accordance with approved proffers; 3) recommended
approval of the 2010-2011 transportation portion of the Capital Improvement Plan; 4) received notice that
funding for the Sulphur Springs Road improvements is still in place after State budget cuts; and, 5)
received a report from Deputy Director -Transportation that all current approved revenue sharing projects
in the County remain in place after State budget cuts; future projects unknown at this time.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —11/17/09 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the HRAB discussed the application requesting a
rezoning of 10.33 acres from B2 with an HA (Historic Area) Overlay to B2 with an HA (Historic Area)
Overlay with revised proffers for the historic Jordan Springs property. He said the HRAB recommended
approval of the revised proffers.
Sanitation Authority (SA)
Commissioner Unger reported that the SA is seeking a $5 million bond to do work at the
Red Bud pump station and the Anderson water plant. He said the SA sought the bond in order to save
money on taxes and will only have to pay about 45% of the total taxes.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) —11/06/09 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported that the EDC met to discuss the proposed budget for
the upcoming fiscal year. Based on guidance from the Board of Supervisors, the EDC was told to
maintain a status quo budget; therefore, the budget presented was the same as the current fiscal year.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's
agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-3—
PUBLIC HEARING
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Part 401 -
RA (Rural Areas) District; Article II, Part 204 - Additional Regulations for Specific Uses; Article 1,
Part 101 — Definitions and Word Usage; and Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article II,
Definitions; and Article V, Design Standards. This amendment includes: revisions to permitted and
conditional uses in the RA District; revisions to lot types and depth/width requirements; revisions
to the rural preservation subdivision requirements; and inclusion of new definitions and
performance standards for certain uses.
The changes are as follows:
• Section 165-401.02 — Permitted uses — Revisions to add animal husbandry, farm wineries,
and remove cottage occupation signs.
• Section 165-401.03 — Conditional uses — Revisions to add Bed and Breakfasts, Country
clubs, with or without banquet facilities, Off -premise farm markets, Petting farms, Cottage
occupation signs, and welding.
• Section 165-401.04A — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to clarify that
the density is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11, 1991 (the date of
the previous amendment to the section).
• Section 165-401.04B — Permitted Residential Density, Exception — Revision to clarify that
eligibility for the exception is determined by the size of the parent tract as of December 11,
1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section); and revision to provide that rural
preservation lots count against the permitted density of a rural preservation subdivision.
• Section 165-401.06B — Permitted lot sizes — Family division lots — Revision to clarify that
eligibility for family division lots is determined by the size of the parent tract as of
December 11, 1991 (the date of the previous amendment to the section).
• Section 165-401.06C — Permitted lot sizes — Agricultural lots — Revision to eliminate the
provision for agricultural lots as a permitted lot type in the RA District.
• Section 165-401.06D — Permitted lot sizes — Rural preservation lots — Revisions to change
from 40% to 60% the minimum percentage of the parent tract that must be preserved as a
rural preservation lot.
• Section 165-401.08A — Minimum width; maximum depth — Revisions to change the
minimum width and maximum depth for lots in the RA District.
• Section 165-401.08B - Revision to make rural preservation tracts exempt from the
maximum depth requirement and increase the maximum depth to width ratio to 5:1.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2575
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-4-
• Section 165-204.22 — Addition of new performance standards for Farm Wineries in the RA
District.
• Section 165-204.23 — Addition of new performance standards for Welding Repair in the RA
District.
• Section 165-101.02 - Definitions and word usage — Addition of definitions for Bed and
Breakfast, Country Club, Farmer's Market, and Farm Winery.
• Section 144-2 — Definitions and word usage — Revisions to the definitions of major rural
subdivision and minor rural subdivision to remove references to agricultural lots.
• Section 144-17 - Streets — Revision to the cul-de-sac length requirement.
• Section 144-31B — Major rural subdivisions - Revisions to remove reference to agricultural
lots.
• Section 144-31C — Minor rural subdivisions - Revisions to remove references to agricultural
lots.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the proposed amendments to the zoning
and subdivision ordinance have been designed to implement the Rural Areas Report and
Recommendations adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2009. Ms. Perkins reviewed each of the
changes presented in the Commission's agenda, as well as the letters sent to the public.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for public comments and the following
persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Paul Anderson said he and his wife, Mary, operate a farm in the Back Creek District.
Mr. Anderson said he was the President of the Frederick County Farm Bureau with an approximate
membership of 245 families. He noted the Farm Bureau has been working with Frederick County
throughout the RA Study and the development of ordinances to implement the study. Mr. Anderson said
the proposed revisions to the ordinance raised a number of concerns for him and other members of the
Farm Bureau. He was concerned about some of the conditional uses listed on Page 3, such as: E.
Manufacture or sale of feed and other farm supplies and equipment; O. Auction Houses; S. Sawmills and
Planing Mills; and, U. Retail or wholesaling of nursery stock and related products, etc. Mr. Anderson
was concerned that farmers would have to apply for a conditional use permit from the County to conduct
these activities, which represented a typical activity on any average farm operation. He thought this
might be referring to commercial activities; however, it is not specifically stated such in the amendment.
Mr. Anderson remarked that agricultural is struggling to make ends meet and he was not in favor of
additional requirements and restrictions to farming operations.
Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, referred to the 60% reserve area within the Rural
Preservation Lot Subdivision requirements of the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Goode said he
favored the 50% reserve area, as recommended by the Planning Commission, rather than the 60%; he
thought 50% was more reasonable and 60% seemed too high for designing projects. Another concern
raised by Mr. Goode was the lack of "grandfathering" for projects already submitted and within the
review process. He said if a project had already started and was ultimately going to end up with a large
Frederick County Planning Commission rage 10 lu
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-5—
reserve area, under the grandfather clause, the applicant could plot a few lots and after a few years, plot a
few more, but not plat the reserve lot until the very end. If there is no grandfathering clause, he said
landowners may rush to plat a number of lots to preserve them and he was not sure that is the goal for
Frederick County. He said some people may have invested a significant amount of money in surveying or
septic system area searches and they should not lose the value of that investment because of this proposed
amendment. He said he did not see the gain in forcing people to hurry or else lose something they've
already paid for. Mr. Goode's final comment was under "Permitted Uses, H. Home occupations (as
defined);" he said he did not see the definition for home occupation within the document.
Mr. Gary McDonald, Back Creek District, was a farmer and was also concerned about
the same issue raised by Mr. Anderson. Mr. McDonald was concerned about the possibility he may be
required to get a conditional use permit to sell hay, pack fruit, or use the welding shops on his farm. Mr.
McDonald spoke about the loss of area feed stores, packing and fruit companies, and implement
companies, etc. He thought more should be being done to support local agriculture.
Mr. Warren Golightly, Shawnee District, stated that he's owned and operated a tax
preparation and book keeping service, trading as "Golightly Taxes, LLC," for the last 33 years. Mr.
Golightly was concerned about how this ordinance amendment may affect his business; he was interested
in the idea of "grandfathering" of existing businesses. He said the ordinance references the removal of
cottage occupation signs; he said he has a business sign in front of his home on Carpers Valley Road. Mr.
Golightly said that he is also part owner of a farm, which has been in the family since 1893. He wanted to
pass the farm on to his heirs and he was not sure how the proposed changes would affect his property.
Mr. Golightly said he did not want to subdivide his property, but he did not want to restrict his heirs in
doing so. He wanted to know how the ordinance amendment would affect his farm and his business. He
also wanted to know the public ramifications and what this was doing for the community and Frederick
County.
Mr. Pick Beatty, Back Creek District, was in favor of grandfathering any existing _rural
preservation pieces. Mr. Beatty said he owned a rural preservation tract and was told certain facts when
his tract was subdivided. He simply wanted to get some clarification on these revisions and how they
would affect his property.
Mr. Scott Marsh, surveyor with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was seeking
clarification on the implementation of the proposed amendment. He believed the preliminary sketch
plans that have been submitted, reviewed, and approved should be given special consideration for
grandfathering. He thought applicants should be able to continue with the process as approved on those
preliminary sketch plans in which the planning has been completed and a soil evaluation has been
submitted, in addition to other plans that may still be in the process of the next phase of the approval after
the preliminary sketch plan, such as the final road design. He said the way he interpreted this current
revision, if it is approved as written, those plans would have to go back to the drawing board because the
ordinance amendment would become effective immediately. Mr. Marsh stated that if there is an approved
preliminary sketch plan with a 40% preservation lot and the land owner expedites platting and recording
of the preservation lot, then by rights that property should be grandfathered in and given the full
provisions of the older ordinance. Mr. Marsh urged the Commission to review the implementation of the
ordinance for those plans that have been submitted and approved and are in the process.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2577
Minutes of December 2, 2009
I=
Ms. Perkins returned to the podium to address the citizen comments. Regarding the
concerns over the conditional uses and the permitted uses, Ms. Perkins said the ordinance does not apply
to an individual farmer producing goods on his property and selling his produce, hay, etc. She said it
does not take away anything that was previously permitted. She explained that this includes
manufacturing and sales of feed and other farm supplies and equipment. Regarding the off -premise farm
markets and the wayside stands, she said those do not apply if they are located on individual's farm where
they are selling the items they produce on their farm. Ms. Perkins said the off -premise farm market
amendment refers to someone wanting to set up an area where individuals could congregate to sell their
produce in one location and are not located on the farm. Furthermore, auction houses do not apply to
miscellaneous auctions individuals would have at their home, along with sawmills and planing mills. Ms.
Perkins said the ordinance amendment is basically referring to large, stand-alone commercial operations.
Regarding the question of a definition of "Home Occupation," Ms. Perkins said there is
already a definition in the ordinance that applies to home occupations and therefore, one was not included
in this amendment.
Regarding the concern about existing, platted preservation lots, Ms. Perkins said those
will not be affected by this ordinance amendment. She said if it is already recorded and already in
existence, this ordinance does not apply. Regarding the implementation policy, she said the amendments
have been discussed over the last year and a half. She said with the previous ordinance amendment which
was advertised over a year and a half ago, it included a grandfathering policy. However, this ordinance
does not because of the length of time it has been presented to the public. She said preservation tracts that
are platted upon adoption of the ordinance will be grandfathered, but nothing else.
Commissioner Oates spoke about the issue of grandfathering the rural preservation lots.
He said once the 40% preservation tract is recorded, the applicant will not lose any density and they will
get the same number of lots because they are still under the old guidelines. Ms. Perkins replied this was
correct; she said they would be vested in what they showed on their sketch plan. Commissioner Oates
said if the applicant has gotten this far, they have already paid their initial fee. He said if additional fees
are established by the County in the future, it should not be applied to them, as far as a plat review fee.
Staff made note of the comment; staff pointed out that the fee structure was not being discussed at this
time. Staff was not proposing any new fees.
Commissioner Kriz believed 60% was too high for the parent tract to remain intact as a
contiguous parcel and he thought 50%, as previously discussed by the Planning Commission, was more
reasonable. Commissioner Oates agreed, but stated that the Board of Supervisors had already made their
decision on this percentage.
Commissioner Thomas said he didn't think the Board's decision would preclude the
Commission from making an alternate recommendation to the Board for their consideration.
Commissioner Thomas agreed that 60% was too high, especially when you take out for roads, septic
fields and systems, etc. He said it was the Commission's responsibility to give the Board its best
recommendation.
Commissioner Oates thought it was also a mistake to take away the bonus lot, which was
on..;nany intended to be. added in and the preservation tract is not counted. He said hopefully, between
the bonus lot and the 50%, it will encourage people to continue using =aral preservation subdi.isiors
instead of the five -acre lot subdivisions.
Frederick County Planning Commission rage cj io
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-7 -
Commissioner Kriz totally agreed with Commissioner Oates' comments and thought the
Commission should put forth the same recommendation previously sent forward by the Commission, with
the 50% and the bonus lot.
Commissioner Unger said he didn't have a problem with 50% and he recalled this was
discussed at length; however, he also recalled that the width and depth of the lot was changed so that it
would work better. He thought the change in width and depth was the helping point in going to 60%.
Commissioner Oates next referred to the amendment under Section 165-401.08
Minimum width; maximum depth, (b) Lots fronting on the turnaround of a cul-de-sac. He said there was
a reduction to 80 feet from the original 100 feet, but only 50 feet is required if the lot is on the street.
Commissioner Oates said generally, cul-de-sac lots are pie -shaped. He didn't understand why the lot
width was wider for a cul-de-sac and narrower for lots perpendicular to the street. Other Commission
members agreed.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend a revision to the proposed
amendment to change the cul-de-sac lot width at setback from 80 feet to 50 feet. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed.
Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to recommend approval of the Rural Area
District revisions and requested the Board of Supervisors strongly consider reducing the set aside tract for
the rural preservation parent lot from 60% to 50% (Page 5, 165-401.04.C, Rural Preservation Lots (1)(a))
and for the bonus lot to be added back into the ordinance to allow a better utilization of the ordinance and
to encourage use and preservation of usable tracts. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of the Rural Area District revisions with a change in the cul-de-sac lot width at setback from 80 feet to 50
feet and further recommends that the Board of Supervisors strongly consider reducing the set aside tract
for the rural preservation parent lot from 60% to 50% and that the bonus lot be added back in as a part of
the ordinance to allow better utilization and to encourage use and preservation of usable tracts.
(Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from this meeting.)
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Sewage Disposal Systems, Water
and Sewers. This revision contains new requirements for onsite sewage systems, license
requirements, requirements for permanent pump and hauls, replacement or repair of onsite
systems, maintenance requirements for alternative systems, and revisions to the violations and
penalties.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perk -ins, reported that this amendment is in accordance with
the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations referred to in the
previous amendment. Ms. Perkins briefly described the proposed changes for the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2579
Minutes of December 2, 2009
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, said he believed a problem existed with a general
failure to fix disposal systems that have been in existence for many years and are failing. He said there is
no trigger [within the code] requiring a homeowner to fix failing systems. Mr. Goode said increasing the
reserve to 1,000% of what's required, in his opinion, was a waste of land, if there is no trigger to require
the system to be fixed. He believed a 50% reserve area should be enough and density regulations should
be handled directly by themselves.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Commissioner Thomas had mixed feelings about the 50% versus 100% reserve area.
Commissioner Thomas said all septic systems with drainfields will eventually fail and when they do is a
timing issue; he said it was dependant on the porosity of the soil of the drainfield. He said the only way
to maintain a drainfield is to tear it out and replace the soils once the porosity has been changed enough
that it no longer perculates; he said there is nothing else that can be done with it. Commissioner Thomas
commented that having a 50% reserve area will not provide enough space to replace the drainfield and
until the County allows alternative treatment systems for homeowners, the only thing they can do is
remove the failing drainfield and replace it. He said, hopefully, they will have enough reserve area to get
the perculation and porosity that's required by the Health Department. He noted that the 100% reserve
area will take more land, but if the system fails, it is the only alternative.
Ms. Perkins said Frederick County is now required by the State of Virginia to allow all of
the alternative sewage disposal systems. Ms. Perkins said that if a conventional system with a 50%
reserve fails, an alternative sewage disposal system would need to be installed because it requires less
amount of drainfield than conventional systems. She said in Frederick County, there are already a high
number of alternative systems.
Commissioner Oates stated that through his own surveying experience, he found that the
100% reserve area is not impossible to plat and did not cost any more money. He said with the last five
subdivisions he worked on, they did not lose a lot because of not being able to find a 100% reserve area.
Commissioner Oates said there are several rural counties to the southwest that require 50% and Fauquier
County requires 200%; however, he believed the 100% was reasonable.
Commissioner Unger said that past input from soil scientists on this issue recommended
the 100% reserve area.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance to amend
the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Sewage Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers, as proposed.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Sewage
Disposal Systems, Water and Sewers. This revision contains new requirements for onsite sewage
systems, license requirements, requirements for permanent pump and hauls, replacement or repair of
Frederick County Planning Commission rage l:)zsu
Minutes of December 2, 2009
WIN
onsite systems, maintenance requirements for alternative systems, and revisions to the violations and
penalties.
(Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from this meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Rezoning #07-09 of the Burns Property, Valley Mill Road, submitted by PHR&A (Patton, Harris,
Rust & Associates, Inc.) to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2
(Business General), with proffers, for commercial uses. The properties are located in the northwest
corner of the intersection with Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Martin Drive. The properties are
further identified with P.I.N 54 -A -112Q, 54 -A -112D, and 54 -A -112P in the Red Bud Magisterial
District. (This item was tabled from the Commission's October 7, 2009 meeting.)
Action — Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that subsequent to the Planning
Commission's public hearing on this item on October 7, 2009, staff has evaluated the status of Martin
Drive, the key access to this proposed commercial project. He said it was determined that Martin Drive is
not a state -maintained road. He said the applicant has modified the request and the GDP (generalized
development plan) provides no improvement and no access to Martin Drive; it maintains improvement on
Valley Mill Road, consistent with the previous proffer. Mr. Ruddy said the key changes deal with direct
access, as follows: 1) The applicant has prohibited direct access to Valley Mill Road and stated that
primary access shall be through the adjoining property, at a point identified as an inter -parcel connection;
access to Martin Drive shall be prohibited at this time. 2) The applicant has proffered that all
improvements to Valley Mill Road, proffered either by this project or the adjacent Walgreens, Dairy
Comer Place project, must be completed prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 3) The applicant has
continued the ten -foot hiker -biker trail across this property's frontage with Valley Mill Road, provided a
sidewalk along Martin Drive, and proffered the construction of a sidewalk along the Dowell J. Howard
School property.
Mr. Ruddy continued, stating there are some off-site transportation impacts that remain
unaddressed, especially in the area of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. He said this project does not
propose any monetary contribution to offset any of those transportation impacts. Further, the
improvements proposed for Martin Drive have been eliminated with no comparable monetary value
provided.
There were questions from the Commission members about the access through the
Walgreens site concerning an access agreement and a consolidated TIA for both sites.
Commissioner Mohn said one of his initial concerns was how the use of Martin Drive
was going to work with that entrance and an inter -parcel connection between the Walgreens site and this
property. He believed the overall transportation system was improved with Martin Drive now out of the
equation. He said, generally speaking, it may be an improvement on the vehicular traffic movement.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2581
Minutes of December 2, 2009
Mr. Patrick Sowers with PHR&A was representing this application. Mr. Sowers said the
applicant has reached an agreement with the developer of the Walgreens, Dairy Corner Place site for
access through the Walgreens site; he said they are scheduled to go to closing in the last week of
December 2009. Mr. Sowers said all of the easement plats will be recorded at the time of closing. He
noted that prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting, the applicant will have the agreement in place,
which is both a proffered condition and a private agreement through easement. He said the Martin Drive
sidewalk would be built within the applicant's property boundary; the existing right -of --way is large
enough to improve Martin Drive to State standards without impacting the sidewalk constructed by the
applicant. From the landscaping standpoint, Mr. Sowers said a Category B buffer would be required and
would address the landscaping element adjacent to residential uses across Martin Drive and adjacent to
the north. Regarding the sidewalk at the Dowell J. Howard property, he said Frederick County Schools
will be dedicating ten feet of right-of-way across their property frontage and the applicant would
construct the sidewalk within the State's right-of-way.
Mr. Sowers continued, stated the traffic volume for the Burns property is expected to be
10% of the built -out trips on Valley Mill Road; therefore, the majority of their transportation
improvements will occur on Valley Mill Road. Frontage improvements on Valley Mill Road and the left -
turn lane at Dowell J. Howard were discussed. He said the applicant's proffer stipulates the site cannot be
developed until all of the improvements were made all the way out to Route 7.
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and
Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Mohn spoke about the proposed sidewalk on the school's property and the
preparation of documents and plats to expedite the process. Commissioner Mohn said he did not have a
problem with the accountability to make this proposal happen; however, he asked the applicant to what
extent he was committed in sharing the costs of document preparation or providing the documents the
school is going to need to dedicate the right-of-way. Commissioner Mohn said that given the budget
situation the county and the schools are facing, and setting a 180 -day clock on something that may not be
a priority for the school, it would seem to be appropriate for the applicant to either provide those
documents or provide a cost-sharing opportunity to the extent possible.
Mr. Sowers believed the solution would be for the applicant to prepare all of the
documents necessary for the dedication in order to expedite the process and they would commit to a 12 -
month time frame.
Commission members asked Mr. Bishop for his opinion on having the applicant prepare
the dedication documents within the time frame suggested. Mr. Bishop believed it was appropriate for the
applicant to prepare the documents. He suggested the improvements could be bonded in order to provide
the applicant with some flexibility for their certificate of occupancy and also provide protection for the
County.
No other issues remained to be discussed by the Commission.
Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application
#07-09 of the Burns Propeirty, on Valley Mill Road, submitted by rM�&_A. (Patton, Harris, Rust &
Associates, Inc.) to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business
General_), with proffers, for commercial uses, with the understanding that the applicant has made a
commitment to preparing all of the necessary documents for the Valley Mill Road right-of-way necessary
Frederick County Planning Commission rage
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-11 -
for the installation of the sidewalk on the school's frontage within one year of approval of the rezoning.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning Application 407-09 of the Burns Property, on Valley Mill Road,
submitted by PHR&A (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc.) to rezone 1.26 acres from RP (Residential
Performance) District to B2 (Business General), with proffers, for commercial uses, with the
understanding that the applicant has made a commitment to preparing all of the necessary documents for
the Valley Mill Road right-of-way necessary for the installation of the sidewalk on the Frederick County
School's frontage within one year of approval of the rezoning.
(Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from this meeting.)
Subdivision Request #05-09 of Winchester Metals, Inc., submitted by Marsh & Legge Land
Surveyors, P.L.C., to create a subdivision of 15.828 acres into two lots of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677
acres for manufacturing use. The property is located on the southwest side of Ebert Road (Rt. 837),
approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) and Ebert Road.
The property is further identified by P.I.N. 44 -A -12A in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the applicant has
requested a subdivision of a 15.828 -acre parcel into two parcels consisting of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677
acres for manufacturing uses. Mr. Cheran said both parcels are zoned MI (Light Industrial) and the
current use of the property is metal recycling. Mr. Cheran said this property was zoned M1 when
Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967; therefore, the property does not have an approved master
development plan (MDP) associated with it. He said the MDP has thus been waived for this subdivision
request. The properties are located within the North East Land Use Plan and the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA). He said land divisions in the M1 District without an approved MDP must be
presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. Mr. Cheran said the subdivision has met the
requirements for a waiver from the MDP requirements; however, the design elements associated with the
MDP have not been waived.
Mr. Cheran stated that staff is seeking administrative approval authority on this
subdivision request. He said a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of
Supervisors regarding this request is desired.
Commissioner Thomas commented that both parcels will have frontage on Ebert Road,
but access is through only one of the sites. He also noted that both of the sites will have access to
Martinsburg Pike, through an existing 60 -foot right-of-way, if they would choose to use it.
Mr. Scott Marsh, land surveyor with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was representing
this project. Mr. Marsh said the proposal for this subdivision is not seeking to change the existing
conditions. I Ie said the existing features and entrance will remain the same. He said VDOT has reviewed
this subdivision, they have provided an approval letter, and have signed the plats. Mr. Marsh said the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2583
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-12—
intent here is to obtain approval for administrative review and approval by the staff. Regarding the right-
of-way to Martinsburg Pike, he said the owner would have to seek commercial entrance permits from
VDOT in order to construct that entrance. He said yes, they do have frontage on Martinsburg Pike, but
the access would be controlled by an approved entrance.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this time. No one came forward to
speak and she closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend to the Board that the staff be given
administrative approval authority for this subdivision. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Thomas and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend that staff
be given administrative approval authority for Subdivision Request #05-09 of Winchester Metals, Inc.,
submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., to create a subdivision of 15.828 acres into two
lots of 5.7599 acres and 10.0677 acres for manufacturing use. The property is located on the southwest
side of Ebert Road (Rt. 837).
(Note: Commissioner Triplett was absent from the meeting.)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165,
ZONING WITH THE ADDITION OF STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT
ANALYSIS (TIA)
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this proposed amendment to the zoning
ordinance is to include references to the traffic impact analysis standards which were adopted by the
Board of Supervisors in July of 2009. Ms. Perkins said the references have been included in both the
zoning and subdivision ordinances for rezoning, master development plan, site plan, and subdivision
design plan processes. She said this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and
Regulations Committee) at their October 22, 2009, meeting where they endorsed the changes and sent it
forward to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Oates said this item has been extensively discussed at the Transportation
Committee level over the last couple years. He said many of the stake holders provided their input and
helped to write it. Commissioner Oates commented that at this point, it has had unanimous backing.
Commissioner Kriz said he also attended the Transportation Committee meetings when
this was discussed. He agreed the developers and others who were concerned with this wrote quite a bit
of the amendment themselves.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission and they were satisfied
w1V11t d+
U1V1aJLUZU VeVn F--ew
Frederick County Planning Commission rage LN54
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-13 -
DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY
CODE TO INCLUDE REVISIONS TO THE HISTORIC AREA (HA) OVERLAY ZONE
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the current Overlay Zone contains
criteria for establishing HA (Historic Area) Districts, criteria for determining historic significance, and
general regulations, as well as an administrative section. However, the ordinance does not contain any
criteria for the development or alterations of structures and, therefore, any improvements, such as
landscaping, parking, and so forth would have to follow the regulations for the underlying zoning district.
Ms. Perkins said the staff is proposing revisions to the HA Zone to address certain design elements for
new construction, as well as some other minor updates and revisions. She said specifically, the revisions
and additions include changes to the general regulations, some additional guidelines for constructions or
alterations, including scale, signs, etc., along with some parking surface material regulations and some
minor additions to the administration section.
Ms. Perkins said the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board) discussed this at their
September 15, 2009, meeting and had some minor revisions, but did endorse the rendition presented to
the Planning Commission this evening. She said the DRRC reviewed this at their meeting of October 22,
2009; they agreed with the changes and forwarded a positive recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Mohn suggested the word "shall" be used instead of the word "should"
under the Guidelines for New Construction and Alterations to ensure the Commission will attain what
they expected in these areas.
No other comments or issues were raised by the Commission.
REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Planning Commission's Bylaws state that
in the Fall of every year, the Planning Commission is to review the bylaws and consider any changes for
adoption in the following January. Mr. Lawrence said the Bylaws Committee reviewed and discussed the
Bylaws and the Rules & Regulations in October and determined there were no recommended changes;
however, in terms of the actual Bylaws, they believed it was appropriate to change the Code citations
because the Commission had recodified the Zoning Ordinance. Another recommended change was to
remove the word, "early," from Section 8-3-11-1 in order to provide additional flexibility, if the
Commission decides to waive the 11:00 p.m. adjournment guideline. Mr. Lawrence said if the
Commission was satisfied with those two recommended revisions, he would bring the Bylaws back to the
Commission in the January 6, 2010, agenda for adoption.
The Commission members were satisfied with the recommendations and had no further
changes to the Bylaws or the Rules and Regulations.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2585
Minutes of December 2, 2009
-14 -
CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER 16 2009 REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Wilmot announced that no items had been submitted for the Commission's
consideration for the December 16, 2009, meeting. Tberefore, Chairman Wilmot announced the
cancellation of that meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. by a
unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission rage zozsb
Minutes of December 2, 2009
C�
•
:�
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #01-10
lc� ` c°G CVS PHARMACY
SHENANDOAH VALLEY WESTMINSTER -CANTERBURY
w'
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
17M Prepared: January 14, 2010
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
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: 02/03/10
Board of Supervisors: 02/24/10
Action
Pending
Pending
EXECUTIVE SUMARY: This is a request for an Off Premises Sign.
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would suggest the following
conditions be placed on the CUP:
1. Sign shall be properly maintained.
2. This illuminated off premises business sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height and 150
square feet in face area.
3. Only the Westminster Canterbury sign shall be on this sign structure.
4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of 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.
cK Co
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 401-10
CVS PHARMACY
w° SHENANDOAH VALLEY WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY
a
w Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: January 14, 2010
1138
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
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 Action
Planning Commission: 02/03/10 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 02/24/10 Pending
LOCATION: This property is located at 1379 North Frederick Pike, at the intersection of
North Frederick Pike (Route 522) and Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 53A -A-5
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B-2 (Business, General)
Land Use: Retail
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: B-2 (Business, General)
Land Use: Commercial
South: RP (Residential Performance)
Land Use: Residential
East: B-2 (Business General)
Land Use: Commercial
West: B-2 (Business General)
Land Use: Commercial
PROPOSED USE: This application is for an off -premises sign.
CUP 901-10, Westminster -Canterbury
January 14, 2010
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Planninst and Zoning: This application for a Conditional Use Permit is in response to a zoning
violation received by staff. The applicant was cited for violation of approved Conditional Use
Permit #05-08 for increasing the face area size and number of signs. Applying for an updated
CUP is an available option to resolve this violation. CUP #05-08 was approved for one (1) sign
no larger than fifty (50) square feet in face area. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
specifies that when considering an off premises business sign, additional performance standards
should be considered to promote orderly economic development. These performance standards
are to ensure that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of
significant historic value are not negatively impacted. In addition, standards shall include: height
and size limitations of signs, placement of signs along highway corridors, and illumination of
signs to mitigate any negative impacts to adjoining properties and uses.
The sign will be located on property that is adjacent to the intersection of North Frederick Pike
(Route 522 North) and Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318). This proposed off premises
business sign will be illuminated, standing approximately 15 feet in height and face area size of
150 square feet with two (2) business signs located on the sign structure reading "Westminster
Canterbury" and "The Premier Retirement Community in the Shenandoah Valley" (see
illustration by applicant). The off premises sign will be used for "Westminster Canterbury" only
and no other signage will be allowed on this site. This proposed sign meets the distance
requirements for signage, as noted within the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/03/10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the
following conditions:
1. Sign shall be properly maintained.
2. This illuminated off premises business sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height and150
square feet in face area.
3. Only the Westminster Canterbury sign shall be on this sign structure.
4. Any expansion or modification shall require approval of 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 o"supervisors.
53D 3 34"
PLI
• VEY-
N�
j
53 A 52E
SIDE
,�7PERTIES
N
vg
n
Case Planner: MCheran
#_6 i
S3 _6-
T52
52
I -A
r.
53A 2D4'c
53A. A. '5
CVS
L-vs
V"
R'�'L
VA C
10
I
4V
44 J
Westminster Canter oury
Shenandoah Valley Off Premise Sign
Westminster Canterbury
Aerial Photos (2006)
PIN: 53A -A- 5
PIE RIDGE
42 A 1980
Zoning
.1
G--P
40 -�
WINSTONELLC
t
(`�— --"' Di"—)(R--.1
Planned C.....iq DmtHd) RP (R<Iid-W NK.M.— Di.t,kf)
42 A 4198H
BE (B -Ii—, G--1 Di—)
hn Ught Dk—l)
WINSTONtUC
we 0
125
250
500 Feet
400
52
I -A
r.
53A 2D4'c
53A. A. '5
CVS
L-vs
V"
R'�'L
VA C
10
I
4V
44 J
Westminster Canter oury
Shenandoah Valley Off Premise Sign
Westminster Canterbury
Aerial Photos (2006)
PIN: 53A -A- 5
PIE RIDGE
FW111 RM Bypass
A ,fi..fi..
Zoning
.1
G--P
40 -�
ONI (0fr— - Nf.--i.g P—)
-- — -) MA fR.,.l A— Djf�d)
(`�— --"' Di"—)(R--.1
Planned C.....iq DmtHd) RP (R<Iid-W NK.M.— Di.t,kf)
k • U— D—--
BE (B -Ii—, G--1 Di—)
hn Ught Dk—l)
RS (R-id—Hal Recrevrivnal Community Dixlri.d)
we 0
125
250
500 Feet
-Sc rlanner. mluneran
0
s L
Future RM Bypass Zoning
!?Applieation 11 Busin.31, Neighborhood Dixhict)
Urban Development Am DS (Bnaine Genesi Disirist)
—NA Bd (.amous, industrial Transition District)
125 250
Westminster Cantel ury
Shenandoah Valley Off Premise Sign
Westminster Canterbury
Current Zoning
PIN: 53A -A- 5
y
APPLE PIE RIDGE RD /
it Y
I.
Winchester. VA
�- CAf B.Inetrve Manufacturing Distriad) An (Indvslrial, General District) OM(Office- Afanutcturing Park) j Rk(Run) Ana District)
HE(Higher Eduction District) 4MAHf1(Mobile domeCommwity District) Rd(ReaidentNI Planned Community Mold) RP(RsAdantiai Performance District)
All (Industrial, Light District) 4w NIS(Medlcel Support Dis d) I�M R5 Residential Rec fionai Community District)
500 Feet
R" fopJ
_
yam,-...��-�,�Yiiji�:
._:..
0.17.2009
Submittal DeadlineI Jd
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1, Applicant (The applicant if the owner X other)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE
Shenandoah Valley Westminster --Canterbury
300 Westminster -Canterbury Drive, Winchester, VA 22603
(540) 665-0156
2. Please list all owners, occupants (adult individuals as well
as any Entities occupying the property), or parties in the
interest of the property:
SCP 2009-C33A-005 LLC.- Owner
Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc. - Tenant
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the mute number of your road or street)
Intersection of Rt. 522 North (North Frederick Pike) and Rt. 1318 (Westminster -
Canterbury Drive). 1379 North Fredrick Pike
4. The property has a -road frontage of 81.99 feet and a
depth of 267.73 eet and consists of acres.
(Please be exact)
j. The property is owned by de
d
evidenced by deed from recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. on page , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No-
53-4-2-D
Magisterial District Stonewall
Current Zoning B2
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North Commercial B2
East. Vacant B2
South Commercial B2
West ommercia est ential BZIKD
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing)
Off premise (existing) sign as.:�allowed by Section -165:30-0 of the
zoning ordinance.
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:
Not applicable
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent
to both sides and rear and in front of (across street frons) the property where the requested
use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by
mail of this application:
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY Ill#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY ID#
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing
structures on the property, including ii-ieasurements to all propeit3, lines.
See attached exhibit
S�?
VICINITY MAP
DRAWN BY
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
— — 817 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite 120
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
TELEPHONE (540) 662-5792
FACSIMILE (540) 662-5793
EMAU office0painterlewis.com
1 " = 500'
UPPER CRUST,
LL.0
NORTH FREDERICK
PIKE
FREDERICK COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
DRAWN 6Y: ???
02-18--04
JOB #0106003
GENERALIZED SITE
RAWiNc NO
FEXHIE31T.-
SITE
i
r1ANtTrRRI IRY nRl F
a{
0
1�
k
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
817 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite 120
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Telephone (540)662-5792
CONSULTING Facsimile (540)662-5793
ENGINEERS Email office®painterlewis.com
F.
M
(f)
z
m
n
D
z
--i
M
tD
C
(n
z
n
O
z
--I
z
M
Z
--I
D
r -
m
D
C
D
Z
z
PROJECT: SURVEY: C.L:
P -L NA
OFF -PREMISE BUSINESS SIGN DRAWN BY: JOB NO.:
WESTMINSTER -CANTERBURY JCL 0803001
PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION PLAN SCALE: DATE:
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ' .=40.0' 05/22/08
SHEET:
Exhibit 5
12. Additional comments, if any:
I (use), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing bodv
of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. T understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at
I
east seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing arid maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supen4sors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit
authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission - Board of Supervisors or
Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be
conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Kyle Woo, Vice President - SCP 2009-C33A-005 LLC
Omiets' Mailing Address 2525 Fairmount Street Suite 200, Dallas. TX 75201
Oxvners' Telephone No. 214 572-2015
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
4�C1� COQ
Special Limited Power- of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: vvNviv.co.frcdcrick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick,, Virginia,
107 Forth Kent Street, Suite 202, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That 1(We)
(Name) SCP 2009—C33A-005 LLC
(Phone) 214 572-2015
(Address) 2525 Fairmount Street, Suite 200, Dallas TX 75201 _
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of ]Anel (`-Property") conveyed to nee (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. on Page , and is described as
Parcel: D Lot: 2 Block: 4 Section: 53 Subdivision-.
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
Shenandoah Valley
(Nance) Westminster—Canterbury
(Phone) 540-665-0156
(Address) 300 Westminster—Canterbury Drive, Winchester, VA 22603
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (Nage) would have if acting personally to file planning app ications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
❑ Rezoning (including proffers)
E4 Conditional Use Permits
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site PIatt
My attorney -ice -fact sliall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
Size of lower portion of sign
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (aye) have
eenher-eto set my (our) hand and seal this day of , 200
Signature(s)
lX�
State of3MtX, City/County of Dallas , To -reit:
Texas
I, 9L__() S6 Pro a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Y!�? day off/ , 200D
t�1'} My Commission Expires: 5--/ 7 •
Notary Publi.
GLORIA J. SOPKO
State of Texas
------ Comm. Exp; 05;17-12
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director 1/1<
DATE: January 19, 2010
RE: Public Hearing: 2010-2011 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
The 2010-2011 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is scheduled for a Planning
Commission Public Hearing on February 3, 2010. The CIP was previously considered at
the following meetings:
• Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) — December 14, 2009
The CPPC agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and forwarded the draft document out of the
Executive Committee for Planning Commission discussion.
• Planning Commission —January 6, 2010
The Planning Commission considered the CIP as a discussion item and the
consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the CIP were
in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
• Board of Supervisors —January 13, 2010
The Board considered the CIP as a discussion item and directed Staff to schedule
public hearings for the 2010-2011 CIP.
This year's CIP once again emphasizes the connection between the CIP and potential
proffered contributions made with rezoning projects. This effort was further reinforced
through the effort of the Parks and Recreation Department and their identification of their
comprehensively planned parks including community, neighborhood, and district parks.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Planning Commission
Public Hearing: 2010-2011 CIP
January 19, 2010
Page 2
It should be noted that several CIP projects have been adjusted in recognition of current
growth trends and to be generally reflective of the current economic climate.
Please find attached with this agenda item: a draft copy of the proposed 2010-2011 CIP,
which includes four maps illustrating the known locations of the CIP requests and a
summary of all of the project requests. If adopted, the CIP and included maps will
ultimately become a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, satisfying the review
requirement of Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public
facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a
jurisdiction's comprehensive plan.
The CIP is presented as a public hearing. A recommendation to forward to the Board of
Supervisors would be appropriate.
Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this
information.
Attachments
MTR/bad
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................2
Frederick County Public Schools...................................................2
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................2
Handley Regional Library........................................................ 3
Transportation Committee.......................................................... 3
Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 3
County Administration ....................... ....................................... 4
Fire& Rescue.........................................................................4
2010-2011 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP .................................................. 7
2010-2011 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP........... 9
2010-2011 COUNTY PARKS AND REC. CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP............ I I
2010-2011 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAP .................................... 13
2010-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE........................15
CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS............................................................23
PROJECT FUNDING.......................................................................23
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS................................................................ 25
Frederick County Public Schools...................................................25
Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................29
Handley Regional Library...........................................................35
Transportation Committee .............................. .....................37
Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 41
County Administration.............................................................. 44
Fire and Rescue.......................................................................46
Individual Fire & Rescue Company Requests ............................49
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FREDERICK COUNTY
2010-2011
INTRODUCTION
Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of
plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the
ensuing five years.
The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed
or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in
preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital
expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform
to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with
considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. When the
CIP is adopted, it becomes a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning
document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may
change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that
particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The
status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is
projected.
Transportation projects are included in the CIP for a fourth year. The inclusion of
transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be
independently undertaking these projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a
combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
The 2010-2011 CIP once again emphasizes the connection between the CIP and potential
proffered contributions made with rezoning projects. This effort was further reinforced
through the effort of the Parks and Recreation Department and their identification of their
comprehensively planned parks including community, neighborhood, and district parks.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Frederick County Public Schools
The Public Schools top priority remains a new transportation facility. Frederick County
Public Schools recently completed the site acquisition of approximately 50 acres on
Route 522 South for the development of a new transportation facility for the public
school system. The site will house administration, driver training areas, driver and staff
meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays, inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling
bays.
In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student
population, the construction of two new elementary schools is recommended within the
UDA (Urban Development Area). However, the timeframe for these facilities has been
extended out several years. A new high school and both a replacement and new middle
school have also been requested in anticipation of the future demand of a growing student
population. A number of school renovations and relocations are proposed, several of
which are aimed at accommodating an all day Kindergarten program. The Elementary
School renovations have been updated to reflect the phased construction of these
improvements projects. It should be recognized that the all day kindergarten program has
been delayed for several years in light of the current fiscal climate. The CIP has been
reflected accordingly.
This year's CIP continues to include a request to renovate and expand the current
administration building on Amherst Street.
Parks & Recreation
The indoor aquatic facility continues to be proposed as the top priority of the Parks and
Recreation Department for the fifth year in a row. This item is followed by necessary
upgrades to the baseball field lighting at both Clearbrook and Sherando Parks. All of the
remaining projects identified by the Parks and Recreation Department have been moved
out to the later years of the CIP in recognition of the current economic climate. The
Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern and
western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system. Both
land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational needs of
the growing population.
The effort of the Parks and Recreation Department and their identification of their
comprehensively planned parks including community, neighborhood, and district parks,
further emphasizes the connection between the CIP and potential proffered contributions
made with rezoning projects.
The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional
parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Projects planned for Sherando Park include: upgrade of
baseball lighting, upgrade pool amenities, a soccer complex, maintenance compound and
office, skateboard park, parking and multi-purpose fields with trail development, a
2
softball complex, picnic area with a shelter, and an access road with parking and trails.
The soccer complex higher priority is in recognition of a partnership opportunity with a
co-sponsored organization, BRYSA. The projects planned for the Clearbrook Park
include, upgrade of baseball lighting, upgrading pool amenities, a new open play area, a
tennis/basketball complex, and shelter with an area for stage seating. The upgrade of
pool amenities at the swimming pools at both parks will include the addition of water
slides and a spray ground.
Handley Regional Library
The Handley Regional Library continues to recommend four projects, consistent with
their 2009-2010 request. The library's top priority is a parking lot expansion as well as
improvements to sidewalk access at the Bowman Library. The parking lot expansion
would accommodate 121 more parking than what is currently available. The library
wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from the east to Lakeside
Drive.
The three remaining projects request that funding be provided for new library branches
throughout the county which include the areas of Gainesboro, Senseny/Greenwood Road,
and Route 522 South, with the latter two being located within the UDA (Urban
Development Area).
Transportation Committee
This is the fourth year the Transportation Committee is providing project requests for the
CIP. Virginia State Code allows for transportation projects to be included within a
locality's CIP. Funding for transportation project requests will likely come from
developers and revenue sharing. Implementation of transportation projects does not take
away funding for generalized road improvements.
The Transportation Committee has requested funding for twelve projects. The twelve
requests include projects that entail widening of major roads; key extensions of roads that
help provide better networks, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and the addition of
turn lanes at current unsafe intersections. The relocation of the Senseny Road bicycle
and pedestrian improvements and the Eastern Road Plan are the most recent additions to
the CIP. The inclusion of an item for Eastern Road Plan Improvements once again
emphasizes the connection between the CIP and potential proffered contributions made
with rezoning projects which are aimed at mitigating potential transportation impacts
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Winchester Regional Airport
The Airport component of the CIP was modified last year to be more consistent with the
capital planning requirements of the Virginia Department of Aviation. The number of
projects that are included in this CIP is similar to that of previous years, several requests
represent different phases of construction of these capital improvements.
3
The most significant request of the Winchester Airport in this year's CIP is a request to
address the rehabilitation and upgrade of Runway 14/42. In addition, the design and
construction of a relocated Taxi way Connector is another significant project. This year's
CIP includes several projects that provide for the acquisition of additional parcels along
Bufflick Road which are required to meet noise abatement requirements and will
facilitate the proposed expansion of the airport facility.
Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and
state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the
other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding.
County Administration
Modifications to two of the County's refuse convenience sites continue to be a Public
Works priority. The first request is that the current Gainesboro facility be moved. A
fenced, accessible two -acre site will be constructed along North Frederick Pike in close
proximity to the existing site on Old Gainesboro Road. This project will require several
months to complete and include fencing, earthwork, a retaining wall, electric, lighting,
paving and landscaping. The other request is for the expansion/relocation of the Gore
Refuse Site to allow for a trash compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by
compacting trash before it reaches the landfill.
Last year, an item was added to enhance the connection between the CIP and proffered
contributions made to mitigate the impacts of development projects is an item that
addresses general government capital expenditures that may fall below the established
$100,000 departmental threshold. This is similar to the approach previously taken for Fire
and Rescue Capital Equipment. The structure of the County Administration section of the
CIP has been modified and no longer includes Fire and Rescue. Fire and Rescue has it's
own section which is as follows.
Fire and Rescue
The top project for the Fire and Rescue component remains the creation of Fire & Rescue
Station #22 in the vicinity of Route 277, with the ability to provide an annex facility for
other county related offices. The collaboration of this project with other community
users and a land use planning effort was a key element of the Route 277 Land Use Plan.
Fire and Rescue has also included a project which provides for the capital apparatus
needs of this facility.
Fire & Rescue has once again requested the relocation of two current fire stations in order
to operate more efficiently. Two newer projects for Fire and Rescue are the creation of
Station #23, a new facility located in the vicinity of Crosspointe and a Fire & Rescue
Regional Training Center. Such a Regional Public Safety Training Center potentially
consisting of an administrative building, multi -story burn building, multi -story training
tower, vehicle driving range, shooting range, and numerous other training props. This
0
project will incorporate emergency medical services, fire, hazardous materials, rescue,
law enforcement, industrial, and educational institutions located within the region.
Fire and Rescue Volunteer Company Capital Equipment Requests
Previously, a project consisting of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000 for the
benefit of Fire and Rescue Services was established. It is the intention of this capital
expenditure fund to be for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital
equipment fire and rescue vehicles and equipment that may fall below the guidelines
established by the Finance Committee. It was determined that the inclusion of such a
project would be beneficial in ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in
the County's capital planning and budget process. This project is primarily for the
benefit of the individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies.
The individual Fire and Rescue Companies have identified their own Capital Requests
which have been added to the CIP in no particular order. Most of the Capital requests
meet the $100,000 guideline established by the Finance Committee. Those requests that
do not meet this guideline have been noted and therefore relate to the Fire & Rescue
Capital Equipment project category.
G
2010-2011
Capital Improvements
Spacyfic or
Approximate Locations
County Administration 'r
2010-2011
� net e ic�u,fIIty
Capital imp i -, o vemient ,Plan
1 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation i p
2 Gore Convenience Site Expansion
3 Annex Facility / Fire & Rescue Station
4 Round Hill Fire Station Relocation `•i \ y r \�`_�
5 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation 6
6 Fire &Rescue Station 23
Airport
Library 1 -
1 Bowman Library - Parking Lot and Sidewalk Additioni
2 Northern Frederick County Library BranchY.
3 Library Branch - Senseny & Greenwood
4 Library Branch - Rt 522 South i s
.�
r,
f •• 11
37
so
f r�r N
W E
.�`
.nte� 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 75,000
Created by Frederick County Department of
Planning & DevelopmentU L Feet - 72
Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests
submitted by various county departments. Miles
12/10/09
CS Existing Elementary Schools
Existing High Schools
Existing Middle Schools
® Future School Bus Facility
New School Location Alternatives
Urban Development Area
SWSA
Note:
Created by Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests
submitted by Frederick County School Board
12/10/09
2010-2011
r
h� .
Cadl � ,rtovi�,��ients - cin
New School Locations
f �y
J 52
r.,
�.
ment
S / Ufa
IV
a f
f / %
N
W -0
S
0 1 2 4 Miles
r 1
School Locations
Are Most
Appropriate
Within the UDA
Existing County Parks
District Park
Neighborhood Park
Purposed Parks
„p District
Community
Neighborhood
UDA
* Please see attached Spreadsheet.
J
0 0.5 12 3 4 5 6
I_ I I I I
(dote
Created by Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests
submitted by The Dept of Parks & Recreation
12/10/09
SW
20-10-2011
FrederteAk County
ire -�;� jr)rov-emi zte�/t �s P,. an
New Pacers & Rec Locations
IN W
37
s0
i �Q EAST\,
I 1
52 _.�.-_
/*
AQy, iS 7 �
Sherando
r
l
,ZZ
Clearbrook
d*
County Total Project
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014 -
Projects
2010-2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Public Schools
New Transportation Facility
19,000,000
2,100,000
$21,100,000
$21,100,000
Replacement Frederick County
Middle School
1,700,000
13,500,000
16,500,000
2,292,000
$33,992,000
$33,992,000
Fourth High School
6,000,000
1,500,000
21,000,000
23,500,000
3,250,000
$55,250,000
$55,250,000
Robert E. Aylor Middle School
Addition and Renovation
7,975,000
7,725,000
3,375,000
2,925,000
$22,000,000
$22,000,000
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary
Phase 2 Renovation
TBD
TBD
James Wood High School Renov.
TBD
TBD
Bass Hoover Elementary
Addition and Renovation
TBD
TBD
Fifth Middle School
1,200,000
1,200,000
$33,992,000
D
$33,992,000
FCPS Office Expansion Ph 1 & 2
500,000
$14,510,000
$14,510,000
Elementary School #12
2,400,000
$23,200,000
D
$23,200,000
Elementary School #13
$23,200,000
D
$23,200,000
Parks &Recreation
$227,244,000
Indoor Aquatic Facility
15,163,000
$15,163,000
$15,163,000
Clearbrook & Sherando
Baseball Field Lighting
1,252,498
$1,252,498
$1,252,498
Park Land Western Fred. Co.
3,367,728
$3,367,728
$3,367,728
Park Land Eastern Fred. Co.
4,490,510
$4,490,510
$4,490,510
Clearbrook & Sherando
Water Slide/Spray Ground
1,251,208
$1,251,208
$1,251,208
Sherando
Soccer/Multi Use Fields
1,121,998
$1,121,998
$1,121,998
Sherando
Access Road w/Parking/Trails
1,540,626
$1,540,626
$1,540,626
Sherando
Maintenance Compound
374,310
$374,310
$374,310
Clearbrook
Open Play Areas
478,565
$478,565
$478,565
Sherando
Lake/Trails/Parking-2 Fields
1,360,610
$1,360,610
$1,360,610
Sherando
Skateboard Park
513,089
$513,089
$513,089
Sherando
Softball Complex
671,062
$671,062
$671,062
Clearbrook
Tennis/Basketball Complex
526,355
$526,355
$526,355
Sherando
Clearbrook
Picnic Areas
Shelter Stage
804,243
$804,243
$804,243
508,402
$508,402
$508,402
Multi -Generational Center
8,802,605
$8,802,605
$8,802,605
Community Parks (5)
1,347,153
$1,347,153
$1,347,153
Neighborhood Parks (3)
336,788
$336,788
$336,788
District Parks (Northeast and Southwest)
7,858,2381
$7,858,238
$7,858,238
$51,768,988
County Total Project
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
Projects
2010-2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Regional Library
Bowman Parking Lot/Sidewalk
258,028
$258,028
$258,028
Gainesboro Branch
202,516
1,989,180
$2,191,696
$2,191,696
Senseny/Greenwood Branch
N/A
N/A
Route 522 Branch
N/A
N/A
Transportation
$2,449,724
Route 37 Engineering & Construction
300,000,000
$300,000,000
E
$300,000,000
1-81 Exit 307 Relocation
$60,000,000
E
$60,000,000
Warrior Drive Extension
$23,200,000
E
$23,200.000
Channing Drive Extension
$20,600,000
E
$20,600,000
Widening of Route 11 North
$47,800,000
E
$47,800,000
Brucetown/Hopewell Realign.
$3,000,000
E
$3,000,000
Senseny Road Widening
$22,800,000
E
$22,800,000
East Tevis Street Extension
$2,600,000
E
$2,600,000
Inverlee Way
$10,200,000
E
$10,200,000
Fox Drive
$250,000
E
$250,000
Rennaisance Drive
$2,000,000
E
$2,000,000
Senseny Road Pike & Ped
150,000
150,000
150,000
1,550,000
$2,000,000
E
$2,000,000
Revenue Sharing
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
$3,000,000
E
$3,000,000
Eastern Road Plan Improvements
TBD
TBD
$497,450,000
Winchester Airport
Rehab R/W14/32, Upgrade Airfield C
10,000,000
$200,000
A,B
$10,000,000
Land Acquisition, Parcel 50
225,000
$4,500
A,B
$225,000
Land Acquisition, Parcels 51, 52
295,000
$5,900
A,B
$295,000
Design T/W Reloc Sec 1
200,000
$4,000
A,B
$200,000
Land Acquisition, Parcel 54
315,790
$6,316
A,B
$315,790
Construct T/W Reloc Sec 1
3,684,210
$73,684
A,D
$3,684,210
Land Acquisition, Parcel 67
263,158
$10,526
A,B
$263,158
Land Acquisition, Parcels 64,65
526,316
$5,263
A,B
$526,316
County Administration
$15,509,474
Relocation of Gainesboro Site
3,000
449,625
$452,625
$452,625
Relocation/Expansion Gore Site
12,000
425,150
$437,150
$437,150
General Government Capital Expe
200,000
200,0001
200,0001
200,0001
200,0001
$1,000,0001
E
$1,000,000
$1,889,775
County Total Project
Department Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
Projects
2010-2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fire &Rescue
Fire & Rescue Station #22 (277) 400,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
$3,400,000
$3,400,000
Fire & Rescue Station #22 (277) Apparatus
100,000
700,000
$800,000
$800,000
Station #15 (Round Hill) Relocation I 494,000
3,787,696
$4,281,696
$4,281,696
Station #13 (Clearbrook) Relocation 33,000
213,000
4,275,000
$4,521,000
$4,521,000
Station # 23 (Crosspointe) New Facility
550,000
1,250,000
1,000,000
$2,800,000
$2,800,000
Regional Training Center
75,000
1,250,000
10,000,000
6,500,0001
$1,075,000
D
$29,075,000
Fire & Rescue Company
Capital Requests
$44,877,696
Fire & Rescue Capital Equipment 200,000 200,000
*
200,000
200,000
200,000
$1,000,000
E
$1,000,000
See Fire & Rescue Company Requests (<$100K)
Technical Rescue Equipment for Stephens City Fire & Rescue
$105,000
C
$105,000
Ambulance Replacement Project for Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.
$150,000
C
$150,000
Pumperi'Tanker for Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.
$552,000
C
$552,000
Ambulance for Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Co.
$200,000
C
$200,000
North Mtn. Fire & Rescue Station Modification
$315,064
C
$315,064
$2,322,064
Total
$843,511,721
* Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests (<$100K)
Groundwater Reduction Project for Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Co. $50,0001 C $50,000
A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation
B= Partial funding from FAA
C= Partial funding from private donations
D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years
E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue sources
N/A= Not Available
TBD= To be Determined
Total $50,000
THE CIP TABLE
CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS
The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous pages, contains a list of the capital
improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the
information in this table is explained below.
Department Priority- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for
their requested projects.
Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects.
County Contribution- The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each
project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the
five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year
columns, does not include debt service projections.
Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular
projects.
Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other
funding sources.
PROJECT FUNDING
The projects included in the 2010-2011 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project
cost to the county of $843,511,721 primarily over the next five years.
• School projects are funded through a combination of loans from the
Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund.
• Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the
unreserved fund balance of the County. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for
projects not funded by the county.
• Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state,
and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from
Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of
Winchester.
• The inclusion of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an
indication that Frederick County will be independently undertaking these
projects. Funding projects will continue to come from a combination of
state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing.
23
Frederick County Public Schools Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Transportation Facility
Description: This project involves the construction and development of a new
transportation facility for the public school system. The site will house administration,
driver training areas, driver and staff meeting areas, mechanical service and repair bays,
inspection bay, wash bay, and fueling bays.
Capital Cost: $21,100,000
Justification: The current transportation site has outgrown the current facilities and there
is not sufficient area to expand those facilities. The increase in student membership,
coupled with stringent laws and regulations that govern the operation and maintenance of
school transportation vehicles, requires a much larger and upgraded transportation
facility.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 24 months.
PRIORITY 2
Replacement of Frederick County Middle School
Description: The replacement of Frederick County Middle School will have a program
capacity of 850 students and serve grades 6-8. The project location has been requested in
the western portion of Frederick County between Route 50 West and Route 522 North in
the area of Hayfield Road. It will contain approximately 166,000 square feet of floor
area and be located on approximately 35 acres.
Capital Cost: $33,992,000
Justification: With the need for renovations at the current school to major mechanical
systems, items dealing with ADA compliance, increasing membership, location of the
facility, concern for best building configuration for the delivery of instruction.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 42 months.
PRIORITY 3
Fourth High School
Description: This project consists of the development of a fourth high school serving
grades 9-12 with a program capacity of 1,250 students. The project location has yet to be
determined, but will have a floor area of approximately 242,000 square feet and is to be
located on approximately 80 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $55,250,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the
school division over the next five years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will
increase at all levels. Student enrollment in the high schools by the fall of 2013 is
projected to be 4,250.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months
25
PRIORITY 4
Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation
Description: This project involves renovations of the current facility. Major areas to be
included in the project are additional classroom space and storage space; a complete
replacement of fire alarm and communication systems, plus roof replacement; upgrade of
electrical and plumbing; and complete replacement of mechanical systems. Other areas to
be addressed are security, repaving, and the installation of an emergency system.
Capital Cost: $22,000,000
Justification: Robert E. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and
renovations are needed to a number of different areas to ensure economic and efficient
operation of the school for years to come.
Construction Schedule: 48 Months
PRIORITY 5
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School Phase 2 Renovations
Description: Currently, the building serves grades K-5. The building is in good
condition; however, several major areas need to be addressed. These items will be
addressed in two phases. The first phase, kindergarten renovation, was completed this
summer. In the second phase, a renovation of the remaining facility will be completed.
Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation include open classroom
space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and upgrades of fire alarm,
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School is over 30 years old and renovation is
needed to a number of areas to ensure the economical and efficient operations of the
school for years to come.
Construction Schedule: 36 Months
PRIORITY 6*
James Wood High School Renovation
Description: This project involves renovations of the existing facility. Major areas to
be included in the project include increased electrical service and distribution to support
technology; technology cabling, hardware, and its installation; upgrade of plumbing and
mechanical systems; and modification of instructional areas to support instructional
delivery.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the
community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High
School attendance zone.
Construction Schedule: 42 Months
26
PRIORITY 7
Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations
Description: Currently, Bass -Hoover serves grades K-5. The building is in good
condition, but several major issues need to be addressed. Renovation of the remaining
facility will be completed. Several of the major issues to be addressed in this renovation
include open classroom space, ADA compliance, energy conservation, security, and
upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. A building addition
will be needed to maintain program capacity.
Capital Cost: $TBD
Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and
efficient operation of the schools for years to come and to accommodate a full day
kindergarten program.
Construction Schedule: 42 Months - July 2015
PRIrnRITV R
Fifth Middle School
Description: This project consists of the development of a new middle school serving
grades 6-8 with a capacity of 850 students. The project location has yet to be determined
but will have a floor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and will be located on
approximately 35 acres of land.
Capital Cost: $33,992,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the
school division over the next seven years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will
increase at all levels. A projection using cohort migration shows enrollment in the
middle schools by the fall of 2015 to be 3,460. Based on this projection, it will be
necessary to construct the fifth middle school in Frederick County to open in that time
frame.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 48 months.
PRIORITY 9
Frederick County Administrative Office Expansion
Description: The facility contains 20,592 square feet, which does not include the 5,000
square foot Annex that has recently been constructed or the seven modular units that have
been added to help address the need for additional space. The expansion will address the
need for office and meeting space, will take advantage of advances in technology, and
will provide mechanical, plumbing and electrical wiring to code.
Capital Cost: $14,510,000
Justification: The administrative offices will serve 110 current staff housed in the
present Frederick County Public Schools Administration building.
Construction Schedule: 24 Months
27
PRIORITY 10
Elementary School #12
Description: This is a single -story elementary school with a floor area of approximately
100,000 square feet located on 15 acres. The facility will be designed to accommodate a
student membership of 750. The outdoor facilities will include three pods of grade -level
appropriate playground equipment, one asphalt play area, one softball field, and a
physical education field. This facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of
Education's new construction requirements for K-5 elementary schools.
Capital Cost: $23,200,000
Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the
school division over the next six years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will
increase at all levels. A projection using cohort migration shows enrollment in the
elementary schools by the fall of 2014 to be 6,627. Based on this projection,
implementation of full-day kindergarten, and renovations at Apple Pie Ridge and Bass -
Hoover Elementary Schools, it will be necessary to construct the 12`h elementary school
in Frederick County to open in that time frame.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 42 months.
PRIORITY 11
Elementary School #13
Description: This is a single -story elementary school with a floor area of approximately
100,000 square feet located on 15 acres. The facility will be designed to accommodate a
student membership of 750. The outdoor facilities will include three pods of grade -level
appropriate playground equipment, one asphalt play area, one softball field, and a
physical education field. This facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of
Education new construction requirements for K-5 elementary schools.
Capital Cost: $23,200,000
Justification: Significant residential growth in Frederick County is expected to resume
once the economy recovers, with the result that school enrollment is expected to exceed
program capacity in FY 2019-20.
Construction Schedule: Construction will take 42 months.
Parks & Recreation Department Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Indoor Aquatic Facility
Description: This facility would house a leisure and competitive lap swimming pool
with an office, storage and locker rooms. This facility should be located on property
owned or proffered to the County and would utilize approximately 8-12 acres with
parking.
Capital Cost: $15,163,000
Justification: There are no indoor public pools in Frederick County. By constructing
the indoor pool, it would permit the department to meet citizen programming demands,
provide an instructional facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would
attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be available to all area
residents. The construction of this project will provide a facility to offer year round
recreational programming for the residents of Frederick County and provide a facility for
competitive scholastic programs.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11.
PRIORITY 2
Baseball Field Lighting Upgrade
Description: This project involves upgrading the lighting at both Clearbrook and
Sherando Parks Baseball Facilities. The upgrade would involve the removal of the
existing fixtures and wooden poles and their replacement with fixtures that meet Little
League International Standards on all little league fields.
Capital Cost: $1,252,498
Justification: This project will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park and Sherando Park service area which includes all county residents. Park visitation
at the two district parks exceeds 425,000 annually and is growing.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 3
Park Land — Western Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $3,367,728
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland
and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick
County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of
this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to
residents in western Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
29
PRIORITY 4
Park Land - Eastern Frederick County
Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county.
Capital Cost: $4,490,510
Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county
population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County.
This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County
service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 5
Swimming Pool Improvements — Sherando/Clearbrook
Description: This project consists of removing the diving boards and installing two
water slides at both Sherando and Clearbrook Park. The upgrade would also include the
addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool.
Capital Cost: $1,251,208
Justification: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while
providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service
areas.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 6
Soccer Complex- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes the development of one soccer field (artificial grass);
access paths; restrooms; concession; one picnic shelter; a plaza; landscaping; and lighting
(one field).
Capital Cost: $1,121,998
Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by
the Frederick County School System.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 7
Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,800 linear feet
of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails.
Capital Cost: $1,540,626
30
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
purnurTv R
Maintenance Compound and Office — Sherando Park
Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square -foot office and a
4,000 square -foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park.
Capital Cost: $374,310
Justification: This facility will enable the County to maintain equipment and facilities in
a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the
outdoor facilities at Sherando High School, Robinson Learning Center, Armel
Elementary, Orchard View Elementary, Bass Hoover Elementary, Middletown
Elementary, R.E. Aylor Middle, Admiral Byrd Middle, and Evendale Elementary,
increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 9
Open Play Area — Clearbrook
Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a
volleyball court; croquet turf, shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession
stand; landscaping (14 shade trees); peripheral work; and renovations to existing shelters,
restrooms, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake.
Capital Cost: $478,565
Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook
Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive
recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area.
Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 10
Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose Fields
Description: This prvject inVoiVeS the development vii a 12- acre 'lake; 11.5 tulle +iu.i,
system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125
spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields.
Capital Cost: $1,360,610
31
Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park
service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this
facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational
areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service
area.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 11
Skateboard Park - Sherando Park
Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half
pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $513,089
Justification: This facility will enable the County to provide a recreational facility that
has been identified in the County Comprehensive Plan for recreational facility
development.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 12
Softball Complex- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces;
and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $671,062
Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county
population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten
softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the
existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult
softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly
difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and
Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult
softball programs.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15,
PRIORITY 13
Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball
courts; a shelter; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $526,355
Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there
are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook
Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
32
PRIORITY 14
Picnic Area- Sherando Park
Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters;
playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $804,243
Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of Sherando Park service
area. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational
opportunities. This development is needed to reduce the gap between the number of
existing facilities and the minimum standards for the Sherando Park service area and
southeastern Frederick County.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 15
Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook Park
Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance
stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake.
Capital Cost: $508,402
Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently,
there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's park system.
This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 16
Multi -Generational Community Center
Description: The project involves building a 44,000 square foot facility that would
contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be
designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and
badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project
would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms.
Capital Cost: $8,802,605
Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability
to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. The
department can no longer meet the programming and facility needs of the County
residents.
�o`.'rstri:: kA Schedule: Y i4 -i5.
33
PRIORITY 17
Community Parks (5)
Description: Acquisition of Parkland; 60 acres
Capital Cost: $1,347,153
Justification: To reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for our service area, as
recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The project meets policy recommendations
for the development of parks and recreation facilities, insuring that adequate and
appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided.
Construction Schedule: FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 18
Neighborhood Parks (3)
Description: Acquisition of Parkland; 15 acres
Capital Cost: $336,788
Justification: To reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for our service area, as
recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The project meets policy recommendations
for the development of parks and recreation facilities, insuring that adequate and
appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided.
Construction Schedule: FY 14-15.
PRIORITY 19
District Parks (Northeast and Southwest)
Description: Acquisition of Parkland; 200 acres
Capital Cost: $7,858,238
Justification: To reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the
amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for our service area, as
recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The project meets policy recommendations
for the development of parks and recreation facilities, insuring that adequate and
appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided.
Construction Schedule: FY 14-15.
34
Handley Regional Library Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension
Description: This proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of
the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend
approximately 400 to 500 feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to
connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive.
Capital Cost: $258,028
Justification: The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to
accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for
pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation
such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 2
Northern Frederick County — Gainesboro Library Branch
Description: Construction of a 7,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. branch library. Initial parking
should be for at least 50 vehicles. The proposed location would be on Rt. 522 in the
Gainesboro district, but this could change depending on patterns of library use in the next
3 to 4 years and on whether donated land could be located. The acquisition of the land of
3 to 4 acres would be in fiscal year 2008/2009. There is discussion as a possible reuse of
the old Gainesboro School as a library branch, but this is a decision to be made by the
Board of Supervisors after further study.
Capital Cost: $2,191,696
Justification: Now that the Bowman Library is completed, the residents of Gainesboro
district comprise the largest population group that is the most distance from a library
within the regional system. The Library will provide materials and programming for
patrons from toddlers to senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational
materials. It will be a prime source for homework help since it will be open nights and
on weekends when school libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access
for word processing and other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a
meeting room in which area groups can meet.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11/12
PRIORITY 3
Frederick County Library Branch — Senseny/Greenwood
Description: Construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. branch library with expansion possible to
15,000 square feet. Initial parking should be for up to 100 vehicles. The proposed
location is yet to be determined and is dependent on future development. The first step of
the project would be the acquisition of the land of 5 to 8 acres.
35
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: A library in this area would meet the needs of Frederick County citizens
by reducing traffic into Winchester. Parents and other library users will use the library
more often if they do not have to come downtown to Handley Library. This area also
lacks a community center; a library with a meeting room could help fill this need. The
Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to senior
citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime source
for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school libraries
are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and other office
applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425 square feet in
which area groups can meet.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 4
Frederick County Library Branch- Route 522 South
Description: Construction of a 7,000 sq. ft. branch library with expansion possible to
10,000 square feet. Initial parking should be for up to 35 vehicles. The proposed
location is yet to be determined and is dependent on future development. The first step of
the project would be the acquisition of the land of 3 to 4 acres.
Capital Cost: N/A
Justification: This population group is not close to a library in the regional system. This
area also lacks a community center that a library with meeting room could help fill this
need. The Library will provide materials and programming for patrons from toddlers to
senior citizens. It will provide recreational and educational materials. It will be a prime
source for homework help since it will be open nights and on weekends when school
libraries are closed. The library will supply computer access for word processing and
other office applications and for Internet usage. There will be a meeting room of 425
square feet in which area groups can meet.
Construction Schedule: TBD
36
Transportation Committee Project Priority List
PRI"121TV 1
Planning, Engineering, Right of Way and Construction Work for Route 37
Description: This project would be to continue work on the Eastern Route 37 extension.
More specifically, to update the Environmental Impact Statement to the point of a new
Record of Decision and to update the 1992 design plans to address the current alignment,
engineering guidelines, and possible interchange improvements. In addition, this allows
for advanced engineering, right of way purchase and construction.
Capital Cost: $300,000,000 +
Justification: This project moves the County closer to completion of a transportation
improvement that would benefit the entire county and surrounding localities.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRI"'PITV
Interstate 81, Exit 307 Relocation
Description: Construct a relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $60,000,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address coming development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 3
Warrior Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 277 where Warrior
Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south and west to intersect
with I-81 at the location of the relocated Exit 307 interchange.
Capital Cost: $23,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in the Southern Frederick area and address development to the surrounding areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 4
Channing Drive Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road where
Channing Drive intersects from the north and continuing that roadway south to intersect
with Route 50 East at Independence Drive.
Capital Cost: $20,600,000
37
Justification: This project has been identified in the Eastern Road Plan, and will address
congestion in Eastern Frederick County and address development to the surrounding
areas.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 5
Widening of Route I1 North to the West Virginia State Line
Description: Improve Route 11 to a divided 4 and 6 -lane facility as detailed in the
Eastern Road Plan.
Capital Cost: $47,800,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
over a large area of the County and address development to the surrounding area. This
project improves the safety for the traveling public by reducing congestion and improving
the flow of traffic.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 6
Brucetown Road/Hopewell Road Alignment and Intersection Improvements
Description: Realign Brucetown Road to meet Hopewell Road at Route 11.
Improvements to this intersection will address comprehensive planned development's
traffic generation in the area.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
the Route 11 corridor. The location is identified by joint planning efforts between the
county and VDOT.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 7
Senseny Road Widening
Description: Widen Senseny Road to a 4 -lane divided roadway. This project is not
dependent upon, but is being coordinated with the implementation of Route 37, Channing
Drive, and development in the area.
Capital Cost: $22,800,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will have significant impact on
Eastern Frederick County. This project is identified in the adopted Eastern Road Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
38
PUMPITV R
East Tevis Street Extension
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Route 522 and going west
approximately 0.2 miles to connect to the road network being constructed by the Russell
150 development.
Capital Cost: $2,600,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
in many areas of the County and address development to the surrounding area. The
location is as identified by joint planning efforts between the county, VDOT, and the
developer.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 9
Inverlee Way
Description: Construct a 4 -lane divided roadway beginning at Senseny Road and going
south to Route 50 East. This project is being planned in conjunction with improvements
to Senseny Road and surrounding development.
Capital Cost: $10,200,000
Justification: This is a regional transportation improvement that will address congestion
and provide an additional needed link between Senseny Road and Route 50 East.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 10
Fox Drive
Description: Add additional turning lane(s) to Fox Drive where it intersects with Route
522 North.
Capital Cost: $250,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at this
intersection.
Construction Schedule: TBD
PRIORITY 11
Renaissance Drive
Description: Construct a connector road between Route 11 and Shady Elm Drive.
Capital Cost: $2,000,000
Justification: This is a transportation improvement that will address congestion at key
points along Route 11 and Apple Valley Dr.. This project is identified in Secondary
Road Improvements Plan.
Construction Schedule: TBD
39
PRIORITY 12
Revenue Sharing
Description: Plan to prepare for future revenue sharing applications.
Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Justification: This project is intended to prepare the county for future revenue sharing
applications that may or may not include developer contributions.
Construction Schedule: N/A
PRIORITY 13
Senseny Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Description: This project will construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements along
Senseny Road from Greenwood Road to the I-81 crossover.
Capital Cost: $2,000,000
Justification: This project will improve pedestrian safety along a corridor surrounded by
residential development and centered upon the Senseny Road Elementary School.
Construction Schedule: N/A
PRIORITY 14
Frederick County Eastern Road Plan
Description: This project is intended to address all of the planned transportation
improvements in the County Comprehensive Plan, Eastern Road Plan that are not noted
individually above.
Capital Cost: TBD
Justification: This project prepares the county for future development by addressing the
projects needed to support that development in a manner consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Construction Schedule: N/A
M
Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Rehab R/W 14/32, Upgrade Airfield Lighting Design
Description: Design of Runway Rehab and Lighting Upgrade.
Capital Cost: $10,000,000
Local Cost: $200,000
Justification: This design project involves the rehabilitation of runway 14-32 to renew
the life of the existing pavement. Also included is an upgrade to the runway lighting
comprised of new high intensity runway lights and the installation of a new four box
PAPI, which provides a greater accuracy for pilots on final approach to the runway.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 2
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcel 50
Description: Acquisition of parcel located along Bufflick Road. Property is included in
the 20 Year Master Plan.
Capital Cost: $225,000
Local Cost: $4,500
Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the
Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of
the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The
FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport
operations.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
PRIORITY 3
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 51, & 52
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire Parcels 51
and 52 on Bufflick Road. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located
within the airport primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest
to the runway.
Capital Cost: $295,000
Local Cost: $5,900
Justification: Parcels 51 and 52 lie within the runway's primary surface at the
Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also located closed to the
runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal, surveys, EDDA,
etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to complete this
transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
41
PRIORITY 4
Taxiway A Relocation — Phase I & II Design
Description: The relocation of Taxiway A is part of the overall Airport upgrade to meet
safety design standards for a Group III airport. This relocation will improve the
serviceability and safety of the Airport in regards to ground operations for larger aircraft.
Due to the complex task of relocating the entire taxiway, the project has been broken
down into two phases — Phase I will begin at the 32 approach end and continue to the
terminal building midfield. Phase II will continue from the terminal building to the
approach end of runway 14.
Capital Cost: $200,000
Local Cost: $4,000
Justification: The relocation of Taxiway A is necessary to increase the Airport's ability
to accommodate larger aircraft. This project also will improve the serviceability of the
Airport in regards to ground traffic.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 5
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 54
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire an
additional parcel on Bufflick Road identified on the Airport property map as Parcel 54.
This parcel is critical because a portion is located within the airport primary surface, and
the structure on the property is located closest to the runway.
Capital Cost: $315,790
Local Cost: $6,316
Justification: The additional parcel on Bufflick Road lies within the runway's primary
surface at the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also located
close to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal,
surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to
complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 6
Taxiway A Relocation — Phase I & II Construction
Description: The relocation of Taxiway A is part of the overall Airport upgrade to meet
safety design standards for a Group III airport. This relocation will improve the
serviceability and safety of the Airport in regards to ground operations for larger aircraft.
Due to the complex task of relocating the entire taxiway, the project has been broken
down into two phases — Phase I will begin at the 32 approach end and continue to the
M
terminal building midfield. Phase II will continue from the terminal building to the
approach end of runway 14.
Capital Cost: $3,684,210
Local Cost: $73,684
Justification: The relocation of Taxiway A is necessary to increase the Airport's ability
to accommodate larger aircraft. This project also will improve the serviceability of the
Airport in regards to ground traffic.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 12-13
PRIORITY 7
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcel 67
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire this parcel
on Bufflick Road identified on the Airport property map as Parcel 67. This parcel is
critical because a portion of each is located within the airport primary surface, and the
structures on the property are located closest to the runway.
Capital Cost: $263,158
Local Cost: $10,526
Justification: This parcel on Bufflick Road lies within the runway's primary surface at
the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also located closed to
the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e. appraisal, surveys,
EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and will act to
complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 13-14
PRIORITY 8
Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 64 and 65
Description: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority proposes to acquire two
additional parcels on Bufflick Road identified on the Airport property map as Parcels 64
and 65. These parcels are critical because a portion of each is located within the airport
primary surface, and the structures on the property are located closest to the runway.
Capital Cost: $526,316
Local Cost: $5,263
Justification: The two additional parcels on Bufflick Road lie within the runway's
primary surface at the Winchester Regional Airport. Structures on the property are also
located closed to the runway. The airport has completed all preliminary efforts (i.e.
appraisal, surveys, EDDA, etc.) and has made its initial offer along with negotiations and
will act to complete this transaction to ultimately improve safety conditions at the airport.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 14-15
43
County Administration Proiect Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation
Description: The relocation of the Gainesboro citizens' convenience site to property
located within the Gainesboro community is planned for the 09/10 fiscal year. Remaining
design work will be completed during the current fiscal year. A fenced, accessible two -
acre site will be constructed along North Frederick Pike in close proximity to the existing
site on Old Gainesboro Road. This project will require several months to complete and
include fencing, earthwork, a retaining wall, electric, lighting, paving and landscaping.
Capital Cost: $452,625
Justification: Approximately 4,000 residents are served by the Gainesboro facility. The
refuse site serves a wide geographic area from Gainesboro westward to the Cross
Junction, Whitacre and Reynolds Store communities.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 2
Gore Refuse Site Relocation/Expansion
Description: The project will expand refuse collection capacity at Gore by installing a
surplus trash compactor. With the relocation of the Gainesboro site and purchase of new
equipment, there will be an available compactor. Installation of a compactor at Gore will
drive down collection costs at the site where trash is now collected in 10 8 -yard boxes. In
order to accomplish this, and account for improved traffic flow and the construction of
necessary concrete walls, the site will be expanded onto an adjoining parcel already
owned by the county.
Capital Cost: $437,150
Justification: This project would also provide much-needed capacity during heavy flow
times such as weekends and holidays. All 10 containers now on site fill to capacity during
Saturday afternoons and during the Sunday shift when up to 189 vehicles visit the
facility. A 40 -yard roll -off is placed at the site during the Christmas holidays to provide
for increased trash generation. An upgraded site would meet the future solid waste
demands of a growing community.
Construction Schedule: Start in FY 11-12
PRIORITY 3
General Government Capital Expenditures
Description: This new project consists of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000
for the benefit of General Governmental Capital Expenditures. It is the intention of this
capital expenditure fund to be for the purpose of purchasing capital equipment for
governmental agencies and to allow for improvements to general governmental facilities.
Such expenditures may be less than the established $100,000 departmental threshold. It
was determined that the inclusion of such a project would be beneficial in ensuring that
this significant capital expense is identified in the County's capital planning and budget
process. This project is for the benefit of the County Governmental Entities participating
in the CIP but does not include individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: The inclusion of this capital expenditure fund for the purpose of
purchasing capital equipment for governmental agencies and to allow for improvements
to general governmental facilities will enable the County to meet the requirements of the
Code of Virginia with regards to the collection and disbursement of cash proffers
accepted on behalf of the governmental entities.
Construction Schedule: N/A
M
Fire & Rescue Project Priority List
PRIORITY 1
Fire & Rescue Station #22 / Annex Facilities (Route 277)
Description: Construct a two bay Fire and Rescue Station with satellite Sheriff's office
and County office space for treasure, commissioner of the revenue, and BOS office with
meeting room. The station will be located in the area of Fairfax Pike east of White Oak
Road to provide service for the heavy growth area east of Stephens City. An approximate
three -acre site will be needed to accommodate this facility. The fire station will be
approximately a 10,000 sq ft facility to house an engine and ambulance.
This facility is specifically identified in the Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Land
Use Plan approved in 2008.
Capital Cost: $3,400,000
Justification: The development of satellite offices along major transportation networks
and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve
services to the county. The County continues to experience a significant rate of growth;
therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring
citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of
Winchester. This facility would facilitate the implement the Route 277 Triangle and
Urban Center Land Use Plan approved in 2008.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
PRIORITY 2
Fire & Rescue Station #22 / Apparatus (Route 277)
Description: Purchase one (1) custom pumper equipped and one (1) custom Type I
Advanced Life Support (A.L.S.) capable ambulance equipped to be assigned to Fire and
Rescue Station 22.
Capital Cost: $800,000
Justification: This fire and rescue apparatus will be assigned to Fire and Rescue Station
22 located on Fairfax Pike East in the Stephens City area of Frederick County. The
pumper will be built to N.F.P.A. 1901 specifications and equipped with all of the required
and necessary equipment to function as a Class A Pumper. The ambulance will be built
to the Federal KKK -A -1822E specifications and equipped with all of the required and
necessary equipment to function as an Advanced Life Support ambulance. This fire and
rescue apparatus is needed due to the fact that the Fire and Rescue Department currently
owns one (1) pumper and one (1) ladder truck that are twenty (20) plus years of age and
already assigned to other functions. The currently owned fire and rescue apparatus
would not endure the demands placed on it while being assigned to a high call volume
station.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11
M
PRIORITY 3
Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station (#15) Relocation
Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot
facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living
and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet,
with a capacity of 400 people, is also planned; it would be used for fundraising events
and other activities. The project would need a parcel of three to five acres.
Capital Cost: $4,281,696
Justification: The existing facility serving the Round Hill area is 50+ years old and not
large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve the commercial growth in
the Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households,
two schools, and the Winchester Medical Center.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
PRIORITY 4
Clearbrook Fire Station (#13) Relocation
Description: At the present time the Clear Brook Vol. Fire & Rescue has outgrown the
existing building with the equipment on hand, the call volume, the staffing of 24 hour
personnel and the traffic at the existing location. We are proposing a new facility to be
located on Rt. 11 either North or South of Brucetown Road. The building is to be six (6)
drive through bays, administration, eating and sleeping facilities along with a dining hall.
The estimated size of the structure is to be approximately 28,000 square feet. This
upgrade of the facility will help to provide the needed space for Fire and EMS services
for the community of Clear Brook.
Capital Cost: $4,521,000
Justification: This project calls for Fire Station #13 to be relocated to an area that has a
much safer exit/entrance way. This project will also accommodate the growth in
Northeastern Frederick County. The Rt. 11 site also allows for possible growth, if
required.
Construction Schedule: To be determined
PRIORITY 5
Fire & Rescue Station 923 / New Facility (Crosspointe)
Description: This project consists of a 10,000 square foot fire station to accommodate 4
pieces of emergency equipment, and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. This
project could also include satellite offices for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office,
1 reKg��tarer� (lff c.P and Commissioner of Revenue as well as a meeting room for County
Supervisor meetings with their constituents with an additional 2000 square feet of
building area. A two and %2 acre parcel should be sufficient for building, parking and
amenities for approximately 20 to 30 persons. The project is located at Crosspointe
47
Center at the end of current Rt.37 South, an area of proposed high density residential
development, and commercial development.
Capital Cost: $2,800,000
Justification: The proposed location at the South end of Route 37 provides for quick and
easy access to Interstate 81 North and South at the 310 Exit. Access and response on Rt.
37 will be greatly enhanced from 181 to Route 50 West in the Northbound Lane.
Currently Stephens City and Round Hill Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company's serve the
area. This location also provides easy access to Rt. l l and the Kernstown area along with
access to Middle Road and Subdivisions of Brookneil, Stonebrook, and Jacksons Woods.
These subdivisions have large single family homes in an area of Frederick County
outside of the UDA. Water supplies are scarce in these areas and a rapid response from
this proposed facility will likely reduce property damage from fire and response times for
Medical Emergencies. Major collector roads such as Tasker Road and Warrior Drive
along with the proposed extension of Rt. 37 and new roadways in the development will
provide quick access to additional homes and businesses in areas including Front Royal
Pike, Papermill Road. These roadway construction efforts will provide for an increased
level of quality emergency service to the citizens in this entire area.
Construction Schedule: To be determined.
PRIORITY 6
Fire & Rescue Regional Training Center
Description: Construct a Regional Public Safety Training Center potentially consisting
of an administrative building, multi -story burn building, multi -story training tower,
vehicle driving range, shooting range, and numerous other training props. This project
will incorporate emergency medical services, fire, hazardous materials, rescue, law
enforcement, industrial, and educational institutions located in Clarke County, Frederick
County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, Winchester City, State Agencies, Federal
Agencies, and potentially jurisdictions within the State of West Virginia.
Capital Cost: $29,075,000
Justification: This project will serve the rapidly growing Northern Shenandoah Valley.
One of the main requirements for this project is the aging facilities currently being
utilized by Winchester and Frederick County as well as Shenandoah County and the lack
of facilities in the other jurisdictions. The need for modern facilities and props to train
emergency responders and industrial personnel for response to incidents is becoming
more apparent everyday with the increased diversified population, increased number and
type of residential complexes, increased number and type of commercial complexes,
increased industrial complexes, increased training requirements of emergency services
personnel, and mandated requirements for governments throughout the region.
Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12
48
Fire & Rescue Company Capital Project Requests
Capital Equipment Fire & Rescue — Vehicles & Equipment
Description: This new project consists of a revolving fund in the amount of $1,000,000
for the benefit of Fire and Rescue Services. It is the intention of this capital expenditure
fund to be for the purpose of purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment
fire and rescue vehicles and equipment. It was determined that the inclusion of such a
project would be beneficial in ensuring that this significant capital expense is identified in
the County's capital planning and budget process. This project is primarily for the
benefit of the individual Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies.
Capital Cost: $1,000,000
Justification: The inclusion of this capital expenditure fund for the purpose of
purchasing additional and replacement capital equipment fire and rescue vehicles and
equipment will enable the County to meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia with
regards to the collection and disbursement of cash proffers accepted on behalf of the fire
and rescue companies.
Construction Schedule: N/A
The following requests have been added to the CIP in no particular order:
Individual Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests.
Stephens City Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Technical Rescue Equipment Acquisition
Project Cost: $105,000
Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Ambulance Replacement Project
Project Cost: $150,000
Middletown Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Pumper/Tanker Acquisition
Project Cost: $552,000
Ambulance Replacement
Project Cost: $200,000
North Mountain Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
North Mountain Fire & Rescue Station Modification
Project Cost: $315,064
Please see below for the individual requests <$IOOK.
Greenwood Vol. Fire & Rescue Company
Groundwater Reduction Project
Project Cost: $50,000
49
J
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Public Hearing — Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards
Date: January 20, 2010
On July 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved new Traffic Impact Analysis Standards.
These standards provide County officials and staff the opportunity to assess the impact of a
proposed development. The adopted TIA Standards will apply to all development applications
submitted to Frederick County as follows:
When a-TIA is required
Any action that meets the thresholds outlined in the Virginia Department of Transportation
Chapter 527 regulations shall require a TIA. Additionally, Frederick County may choose to
require a TIA under the following scenarios:
1. All rezonings will require a TIA unless waived by Planning Staff.
2. TIA's for Master Plans will be held to the VDOT Chapter 527 standard for
Subdivision Plat, Site Plan, or Plan of Development.
3. Any other proposed action (other than site plan) that has not been previously
approved by the County and is expected to generate 100 or more residential vehicle
trip ends in the peak hour or 250 commercial vehicle trips in the peak hour, where a
TIA has not been completed for a similar or greater trip generation. Additionally,
staff may require a TIA on corridors experiencing significant congestion or safety
concerns.
4. A change in use that has not been previously approved by the County and, while not
resulting in greater trip generation, results in a significant change in trip
demographics or peak travel times resulting in an unstudied impact on the
transportation system as determined by VDOT or the County.
Staff has drafted revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance to add
references to the TIA Standards for the rezoning, MDP, site plan and subdivision design plan
portions. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee
(DRRC) at their meeting on October 22, 2009. The DRRC endorsed the changes and
recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission
discussed the changes at their meeting on December 2, 2009. The Planning Commission agreed with
107 forth Rent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Standards
Page 2
January 20, 2010
the proposed amendment and recommended that the changes be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors for discussion. The Board of Supervisors discussed this amendment at their January 13,
2010 meeting and approved the item to be sent to public hearing.
The attached document shows the existing Ordinance with strikethroughs for text eliminated and
bold italic for text added. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed
Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold italics and deletions are
shown with a strikethrough.
2. Adopted TIA Standards.
CEP/bad
DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009
PC Discussed 12/2/2009
BOS Discussed 1/13/2010
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Part 102 — Amendments
§ 165-102.05 Impact analysis.
A report analyzing the impacts of any rezoning shall be required to be submitted by the applicant with
any application for rezoning. The Director of Planning and Development may exempt rezoning
applications from this requirement if the application is for less than 2-A five acres and if no significant
impacts are anticipated.
A. The impact analysis shall be in the form of a report meeting standards set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and standards published by the Department of Planning and Development. The
Director of Planning and Development shall determine which issues need to be addressed.
B. The impact analysis shall include a Traffic Impact Analysis (T1A) which shall be prepared and
submitted to the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the adopted
Traffic Impact Analysis Standards.
-B.C. In general, the impact analysis shall assume the maximum density or intensity of development
allowed under the rezoning classification. Lesser densities or intensities can be assumed if such
lesser densities or intensities are proffered as conditions on the rezoning. In general, the maximum
possible impacts shall be assumed unless conditions are proffered to lessen those impacts. The
impact analysis may be based on a particular master development plan or site plan only if that plan
is proffered as a condition of the rezoning.
C.D. The impact analysis shall include the following:
(1) The use of surrounding land and potential economic, physical, visual, nuisance and other impacts
on surrounding properties.
(2) The anticipated increase in traffic to be generated as a result of the rezoning, anticipated
entrance locations, anticipated changes in traffic patterns and turning movements on public
streets and anticipated impacts on the capacity and efficiency of existing and planned public
roads.
(3) The anticipated methods by which sewer and water facilities will be provided to the site.
(4) The anticipated increase in potential population resulting from the rezoning, including the
potential increase in population in various age groups.
(5) The projected additional demand for school facilities, public parks and recreational facilities, solid
waste facilities, emergency services facilities and other public facilities.
(6) Anticipated stormwater impacts.
(7) The location of important environmental features on the site and anticipated environmental
impacts.
(8) The location of historic structures and sites in relation to the site and impacts on those historic
structures and sites.
DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009
PC Discussed 12/2/2009
BOS Discussed 1/13/2010
ARTICLE Vill
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS
Part 801— Master Development Plans
§165-801.06 Preliminary master development plan.
Applicants shall submit 42 copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and
Development, together with completed application materials required by the Department of Planning
and Development. Final approval of the preliminary MDP shall be given by the Board of Supervisors.
A. Applicants shall provide comments on the proposed development from various agencies or
developments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The submission shall
be complete and the application shall commence when the plans, application materials and agency
comments have been received by the Director of Planning and Development, when a review
conference has been held, when a preapplication conference has been held, if required, and when
the preliminary master development plan has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee, if
required.
B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and
Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis
Standards.
C. The Director of Planning and Development may require the applicant to present the preliminary
MDP to a design review committee for review. The committee shall make recommendations to the
Planning Commission concerning whether the plan meets the requirements of the Frederick County
Code.
D. When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the plans,
application materials and comments to the Planning Commission for its consideration.
(1) The Planning Commission shall act on the preliminary MDP within 60 days of the date of the
presentation of the plan to the full Commission. The Planning Commission shall either approve
the plan, approve it with required changes or deny the plan. If the Planning Commission fails to
act within 60 days, the plan shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors without
recommendation.
(2) The Planning Commission shall notify the Board of Supervisors of its action on the proposed
preliminary MDP and of any required changes or reasons for denial. If the preliminary MDP is
denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant may choose to withdraw the application and
resubmit it with changes as a new plan, rather than proceeding to the Board of Supervisors.
However, the applicant may choose to proceed with the recommendation of denial to the Board
of Supervisors.
E. Following the action of the Planning Commission, copies of the plan, application materials and
agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration. The Board
shall either approve the preliminary MDP, approve it with required changes or deny the plan.
DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009
PC Discussed 12/2/2009
BOS Discussed 1/13/2010
F. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially
changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were
discussed or required by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall
require that the Planning Commission review the plan as a new preliminary MDP.
F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master
development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144,
Subdivision of Land, of the County Code. Any such plans may be considered concurrently by the
Planning Commission and may be referred to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Part 802 — Site Plans
§ 165-802.02 Site plan applications; review.
A. Applicants shall submit two copies of the site plan to the Zoning Administrator for review, along with
applicable fees and completed application materials required by the Zoning Administrator. Final
approval of the site plan shall be given by the Zoning Administrator. At least five copies of the site
plan are required to be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for final approval.
B. Applicants shall prepare and submit a Traffic Impact Analysis with all site plan applications, in
accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Standards.
€.C. Applicants shall provide comments on the site plan from various agencies as required by the
Department of Planning and Development.
C.D. The Zoning Administrator may require the applicant to present the site plan to the Technical
Review Committee for review. The Committee shall make recommendations to the Zoning
Administrator concerning whether the plan meets the requirements of the Frederick County Code.
.D. E. A site plan submission shall be considered to be complete when the fees, plans, application
materials and comments have been received and when the Technical Review Committee has
reviewed the plan, if required.
€. F. When the site plan submission is complete, the Zoning Administrator may submit the site plan to
the Planning Commission for its review.
(1) The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether to submit the site plan to the Planning
Commission based on the following considerations:
(a) The scale or intensity of the proposed use.
(b) Potential impacts on surrounding properties.
(c) Potential traffic hazards or congestion.
(2) In addition, the Planning Commission may request that the site plan be presented to the
Commission for its review.
DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009
PC Discussed 12/2/2009
BOS Discussed 1/13/2010
4--.G The Planning Commission may make recommendations to the Zoning Administrator concerning the
site plan. The Zoning Administrator shall incorporate such recommendations into the review of the
site plan. The site plan shall be finally approved or denied by the Zoning Administrator.
G.H Approval of the site plan shall expire within five years of the approval date unless building permits
have been obtained for construction.
44.1 The Zoning Administrator or his designated representative shall periodically inspect the site during
construction to ensure that the site plan requirements are met.
U No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use or site requiring a site plan until all
requirements shown on the approved site plan have been met and all improvements shown on the
site plan have been provided. If structures and improvements have been provided sufficient to
guarantee public health and safety but if all site plan improvements have not been completed, a
certificate of occupancy shall only be issued if a bond with surety or other acceptable guaranties have
been provided to insure that all approved improvements will be provided. Such guaranties shall be
for a limited time period acceptable to the Zoning Administrator, during which time said
improvement shall be completed.
ARTICLE IV
Subdivision Review Procedures
§ 144.12. Subdivision design plan.
A.—The intention of the subdivision design plan is to provide all review agencies with a comprehensive
design of the proposed layout and improvements required under § 144-36 of this chapter, as well as
all requirements of Chapter 165, Zoning. The subdimWeir twe Gapies of subdivision
design plan, applicable fees, and all FeqUiFed subdivision appliCatiOR MateFials te the S'-hdmvkiA
.4A.m.-niStratAr fer review aAd cornment. At least five eepies of the Anal r,1'hdbAi9iAR HP ign plan shag
._ ._
_ -
- .° -
A. The subdivider shall submit two copies of the subdivision design plan, applicable eesand
all required subdivision application materials to the Subdivision Administrator Lar review
and comment.
DRRC Endorsed 10/22/2009
PC Discussed 12/2/2009
BOS Discussed 1/13/2010
B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of
Planning and Development with all subdivision design plan applications, in accordance
with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Standards.
C. The Department of Planning and Development shall act on a proposed subdivision design
plan within 60 days after it has been officially submitted by either approving or
disapproving it in writing and giving with the latter specific reasons therefore.
D. The Planning Commission may request to review any subdivision design plan for
approval.
E. In cases where subdivision design plans are submitted for land not included in an
approved master development plan the Board of Supervisors shall approve, approve
with modifications or disapprove such plans after a recommendation has been provided
by the Planning Commission.
F At least five copies of the subdivision design plan shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator for final approval.
Traffic Impact Analysis Standards
Approved by Board of Supervisors on July 22 2009
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) may be required to allow County Officials and staff the
opportunity to assess the impact of a proposed development. The TIA should provide
sufficient information to allow this assessment to take place. Any application that
includes a TIA, which does not meet the standards herein, shall not be considered
complete.
When a TIA is required
Any action that meets the thresholds outlined in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Chapter 527 regulations shall require a TIA (see attached VDOT table).
Additionally, Frederick County may choose to require a TIA under the following
scenarios:
1. All rezonings will require a TIA unless waived by Planning Staff.
2. TIA's for Master Plans will be held to the VDOT Chapter 527 standard for
Subdivision Plat, Site Plan, or Plan of Development.
3. Any other proposed action (other than site plan) that has not been previously
approved by the County and is expected to generate 100 or more residential
vehicle trip ends in the peak hour or 250 commercial vehicle trips in the peak
hour, where a TIA has not been completed for a similar or greater trip
generation. Additionally, staff may require a TIA on corridors experiencing
significant congestion or safety concerns.
4. A change in use that has not been previously approved by the County and,
while not resulting in greater trip generation, results in a significant change in
trip demographics or peak travel times resulting in an unstudied impact on the
transportation system as determined by VDOT or the County.
Process and Report Requirements
Submit a determination form to Planning Staff, which will be used to
determine whether the project requires a TIA or a VDOT Chapter 527
submittal.
2. Each TIA will be required to undergo a formal scoping meeting with VDOT
and County Staff. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling the
scoping meeting with the above agencies. A re -scoping meeting will not be
required in the event that one of the agencies is absent.
3. Each submittal must include the following:
a. All required VDOT copies and payment to VDOT for Chapter 527
submittal.
b. All items on the checklist which can be found in the Traffic Impact
Analysis Regulations Administrative Guidelines published by VDOT in
September, 2007. (Utilize the subdivision plat or site plan package
checklist for master plans.)
c. One paper copy (or PDF on CD) and one CD with modeling files. If
submitting PDF of the report, both report and modeling files may be on
the same CD.
d. Planning Staff will distribute all copies to VDOT for review within ten
business days and will provide comments and or approval of the TIA
within four weeks of submittal.
4. Each TIA must include the following:
a. An executive summary which summarizes the development; significant
findings of the TIA; and results of proposed mitigation.
b. Sections on existing traffic, existing traffic with design year background
traffic, existing traffic with design year background and development
generated traffic. In certain situations it may be appropriate to eliminate
some of the above scenarios or to have other scenarios included; the
Planning Staff in concert with VDOT are entitled to make modifications at
the scoping meetimg.
c. The TIA must include all proposed access points, with details about access
type.
d. Accident Data for the most recent three year period to include accident
type and severity if readily available from the State Police.
e. Appendices that include output report sheets from the analysis software,
grouped according to location.
£ Planning Staff and/or VDOT may require additional analysis, required by
the uniqueness of each development.
Technical Details
1. Trip generation must be determined using the most recent addition of the ITE.
Trip Generation Report unless a variance is granted by VDOT or the Planning
Staff. Only trip generation methodology approved by VDOT and Planning
Staff may be used.
2. The TIA must depict the maximum traffic generated by the proposed zoning
as determined by the Planning Staff. If the proposed proffers limit the
development activities to uses that produce equal or less traffic, a less than
maximum impact may be used.
3. The applicant may include other applicable scenarios in their presentation to
the Board of Supervisors and/or Planning Commission.
4. Existing signal timings provided by VDOT must be used for existing
conditions. However, where existing signal timings are not operating
optimally as demonstrated by the applicant and agreed to by VDOT, an
improved signal timing plan may be used if that plan is provided by the
applicant.
5. Level of Service (LOS) must be considered for all signalized movements and
approaches and shown graphically in the report.
6. When level of service does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan, the report must include suggested improvements that would mitigate the
impacts of the development as required by the Comprehensive Plan.
7. When a new signal is proposed, arterial level of service must be analyzed,
including a signal progression analysis if warranted.
S. When conditions of existing or existing with background scenarios result in a
level of service F, additional analysis must be completed, including
development traffic to determine the impacts of the new development. Items
to include in this comparison are intersection capacity utilization, changes in
delays, queue lengths, and vehicle to capacity ratio.